Table 4.
Scores for methodological quality using COSMIN risk of bias checklist
| PROM | AAOS | A-FORM | OMAS | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article | Zelle et al. (2017) * | McPhail et al. (2014) * | Buker et al. (2017) * | Garratt et al. (2018) | Turhan et al. (2017) * | Olerud and Molander (1984) |
| PROM Development | Doubtful | Inadequate | ||||
| Content Validity | ||||||
| Structural Validity | Doubtful | |||||
| Internal Consistency | Doubtful | Doubtful | Doubtful | |||
| Cross cultural validity and measurement invariance | ||||||
| Reliability | Inadequate | Inadequate | Doubtful | Inadequate | ||
| Measurement Error | Doubtful | Doubtful | ||||
| Criterion Validity | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A |
| Construct validity | Doubtful (Convergent validity) | Doubtful (Convergent validity) | Adequate (Convergent Validity) Doubtful (Known Groups Validity) | Adequate (Convergent validity) | ||
| Responsiveness | ||||||
Scores for methodological quality using COSMIN Risk of Bias Checklist; available options are very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate or N/A. Key: * = Articles were assessed by second reviewer for risk of bias and data extraction, N/A: Not applicable. A blank box indicates that the measurement property was not assessed in the study