Table 5.
Standards for design requirements of studies on reliability or measurement error
| Design requirements | very good | adequate | doubtful | inadequate | NA | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
Were patients stable in the time between the repeated measurements on the construct to be measured? Relevance: 39/40 (98%) (R2a); wording: 33/40 (83%) (R2) |
Yes (evidence provided) | Reasons to assume standard was met | Unclear | No (evidence provided) | NA |
| 2 |
Was the time interval between the repeated measurements appropriate? Relevance: 40/41 (98%)(R2); wording: 37/41 (90%)(R2) |
Yes |
Doubtful , OR time interval not stated |
No | NA | |
| 3 |
Were the measurement condition similar for the repeated measurements – except for the condition being evaluated as a source of variation? Relevance: 37/41 (90%)(R2); wording: 34/41 (83%)(R2) |
Yes (evidence provided) |
Reasons to assume standard was met, OR change was unavoidable |
Unclear | No (evidence provided) | NA |
| 4 |
Did the professional(s) administer the measurement without knowledge of scores or values of other repeated measurement(s) in the same patients? Relevance: 38/41 (93%)(R2); wording: 27/30 (90%)(R3b) |
Yes (evidence provided) | Reasons to assume standard was met | Unclear | No (evidence provided) | NA |
| 5 |
Did the professional(s) assign the scores or determined the values without knowledge of the scores or values of other repeated measurement(s) in the same patients? Relevance: 38/41 (93%)(R2); wording: 27/30 (90%)(R3) |
Yes (evidence provided) | Reasons to assume standard was met | Unclear | No (evidence provided) | |
| 6 | Were there any other important flaws in the design or statistical methods of the study? c | No | Minor methodological flaws | Yes | ||
a R2: consensus reached in round 2; b R3: consensus reached in round 3; c Standard 6 and the responses of the four-point rating system were not discussed in the Delphi study