Table 2.

Tools to assess measurement properties. characteristics and comparison to testing standards

Tools	Cosmin	Terwee’s criteria	Attributes and criteria	Economic evaluation	Guidance for industry	Fitzpatrick’s criteria	ICF ICFCY	EMPRO	SCI criteria	Andresen’s tool	Canchild outcomes	Omeract	Testing standards
Development	Delphi	Author criteria	Expert panel	Literature	Consensus	Literature		Expert panel	Expert panel literature	Literature	Expert panel	Expert panel Delphi	Consensus
Sponsor/s	COSMIN initiative	Author	SACMOT working group	Standing group of health technology	FDA staff	Standing group of health technology	WHO member states	IRYSS committee	SCIRE working group	Author	CanChild centre staff	OMERACT initiative	AERA, APA, NCME
Approval updates	2010, 2018	2007	1996, 2002, 2013	1999, 2017	2006, 2009	1998	2001, 2019*	2008	2008, 2016	2000	1987†, 2004	1992, 1998,2007,2014, 2019	1954, 1966, 1974, 1985, 1999, 2014
Items (scoring)	5–18 items/box (+/−/?)	8–9 items total (+/−/?)	Not item structured (no scoring)	Not item structured (no scoring)	Not item structured (no scoring)	Not item structured (no scoring)	Not item structured (no scoring)	39 items(strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree)	3–5 items/box (++++/+++/++/+)	Eleven items total (A, B, C)	2–6 items/box (excellent, adequate, poor)	2–5 items/box (Green, amber, red, white)	Not item structured (no scoring)
Measurement properties Validity	Content construct (Int. structure cross-cultural hypotheses test) Criterion (Gold standard) Responsiveness	Content construct (Hypotheses test) Criterion (Gold standard) Floor/Ceiling Responsiveness	Conceptual and measurement model Content construct (Hypotheses test) Criterion (Gold standard) Responsiveness	Descriptive (Content Face Construct) Preference-based valuation Empirical (Criterion)	Conceptual model Content construct (Hypothesis test, discriminant, convergent, known groups) Responsiveness	Use Content/face construct (convergent, discriminant, int. structure) Criterion (Predictive) Cut-score precision Responsiveness	Content	Conceptual and measurement model Content construct (Hypotheses test) Criterion Responsiveness	Content criterion (concurrent predictive ‘discriminant’) Clinical utility (consequential validity) Floor/Ceiling Responsiveness	Conceptual and measurement model Instrument bias Int. structure convergent discriminant Responsiveness	Use scale construction Content construct (Hypotheses test) Criterion (Gold standard) Responsiveness	Content, face construct (Convergent, divergent) Criterion (Accuracy) Discrimination (Sensitivity over time and over treatment)	Content response process Int. structure (Dimensions, DIF) Relations to other variables (Hypotheses test, Convergent, Discriminant, criterion, responsiveness Consequences
														Reliability	Int. consistency measurement error (Test retest, agreement)	Int. consistency reproducibility (Agreement, relative measurement error)	Int. consistency reproducibility (Test retest, inter-rater)	Test retest Inter-rater	Test retest Inter-rater Int. consistency	Int. consistency reproducibility (Test retest)		Int. consistency reproducibility (Test retest, inter-rater)	Int. consistency test retest	Int. consistency test retest	Int. consistency intra/inter-rater test retest	Reproducibility test retest	Int. consistency test retest alternate forms scorers and decision consistency/accuracy
Fairness													Equivalence of accommodations
Other characteristics									Norms	Norms, standard values	Norms standardisation		Scales, norms, Score comparability
	Interpretability	Interpretability	Interpretability		Interpretability	Interpretability		Interpretability					Test development and revision
			Burden		Burden	Acceptability (Burden)		Burden	Burden	Burden
			Administration accessible forms		Administration accessible forms			Administration	Administration accessible forms	Administration accessible forms
	Feasibility		Cultural adaptations	Practicality		Feasibility cultural adaptations		Cultural adaptations	Applicability cultural adaptations	Cultural adaptations	Clinical utility (Feasibility)	Feasibility
Frequency of use (%)	61 (30.4)	45 (22.4)	33 (16.4)	17 (8.4)	14 (6.9)	14 (6.9)	7 (3.4)	4 (2.0)	2 (1.0)	2 (1.0)	1 (0.5)	1 (0.5)	0

*Updated version at website.

†Reference at 2004.

AERA, american educational research association; APA, American Psychological Association; COSMIN, Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments; DIF, differential item functioning; EMPRO, Evaluating Measures of Patient Reported Outcomes; FDA, Food and Drug Administration; ICF, international classification of functioning; ICFCY, international classification of functioning for children and youth; IRYSS, Investigation Network for Health and Health Service Outcomes Research; NCME, National Council on Measurement in Education; OMERACT, Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology Clinical Trials; SACMOT, Scientific Advisory Committee Medical Outcomes Trust; SCI, spinal cord injury; SCIRE, Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation Evidence.;