Table 3.
Summary of quality analysis of content development for 24 ULF-PROs.
| Quality rating | Quality criteria assessed |
||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| [Q1] COI | [Q2] Conceptual framework | [Q3] Target population | [Q4] COU | [Q5] Representative sample | [Q6] Qualitative items | [Q6a] Literature items | |
| Good (+) | 1 (4.2%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (16.7%) | 1 (4.2%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (4.2%) | 1 (4.2%) |
| Adequate (+?) | 17 (70%) | 2 (8.3%) | 13 (54.2%) | 9 (37.5%) | 2 (8.3%) | 1 (4.2%) | 2 (8.3%) |
| Doubtful (−?) | 3 (12.5%) | 9 (37.5%) | 2 (8.3%) | 12 (50%) | 7 (29.2%) | 4 (16.7%) | 4 (16.7%) |
| Poor/none (−) | 3 (12.5%) | 13 (54.2%) | 5 (20.8%) | 2 (8.3%) | 15 (62.5%) | 18 (75%) | 17 (70.8%) |
Each column is the number (percent) of sum of PROs scored for each of the seven quality criteria (see Table 1 and methods), according to the ratings. COI = concept of interest; COU = context of use.