Box 6.
Reliability
| Very Good | Adequate | Doubtful | Inadequate | Not applicable | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Design requirements | ||||||
| 1 | Were patients stable in the interim period on the construct to be measured? | Evidence provided that patients were stable | Assumable that patients were stable | Unclear if patients were stable | Patients were NOT stable | |
| 2 | Was the time interval appropriate? | Time interval appropriate | Doubtful whether time interval was appropriate or time interval was not stated | Time interval NOT appropriate | ||
| 3 | Were the test conditions similar for the measurements (eg type of administration, environment, instructions)? | Test conditions were similar (evidence provided) | Assumable that test conditions were similar | Unclear if test conditions were similar | Test conditions were NOT similar | |
| Statistical methods | ||||||
| 4 | For continuous scores: Was an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) calculated? | ICC calculated and model or formula of the ICC is described | ICC calculated but model or formula of the ICC not described or not optimal. Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient calculated with evidence provided that no systematic change has occurred | Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient calculated WITHOUT evidence provided that no systematic change has occurred or WITH evidence that systematic change has occurred | No ICC or Pearson or Spearman correlations calculated | Not applicable |
| 5 | For dichotomous/nominal/ordinal scores: Was kappa calculated? | Kappa calculated | No kappa calculated | Not applicable | ||
| 6 | For ordinal scores: Was a weighted kappa calculated? | Weighted Kappa calculated | Unweighted Kappa calculated or not described | Not applicable | ||
| 7 | For ordinal scores: Was the weighting scheme described? eg linear, quadratic | Weighting scheme described | Weighting scheme NOT described | Not applicable | ||
| Other | ||||||
| 8 | Were there any other important flaws in the design or statistical methods of the study? | No other important methodological flaws | Other minor methodological flaws | Other important methodological flaws | ||
From Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, et al. COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Qual Life Res. 2018;27(5):1171-1179.44 Material distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).