Table 4.

Pragmatic tool evaluation consolidated scores (n = 58 tools)

Tool evaluation criteria		Present (n)	Absent (n)	Cannot answer (n)	Score (%)
Scientific rigour
SR1	Based on systematic literature review?	10	41	7	17%
SR2	Based on the experiences or expertise of partners?	32	25	1	55%
SR3	Based on a conceptual or theoretical framework?	52	6	·	90%
SR4	Is there evidence of tool validity? (any source)	52	6	·	90%
SR5	Is there evidence of tool reliability? (any source)	54	4	·	93%
Scientific rigour domain score			Mean 3.58	Std dev 0.87	Range 1–5
Partner perspective
PP1	Partners involved as co-designers?	34	23	1	59%
PP2	Tool designed to be self-administered by partners?	56	2	·	97%
PP3	Assessment results must be reported back to partners?	16	41	1	28%
PP4	Tool assesses level of partner involvement?	16	42	·	28%
PP5	Tool captures the influence of partners?	44	14	·	76%
Partner perspective domain score			Mean 2.84	Std dev 1.04	Range 1–5
Comprehensiveness
C1	Tool documents partnership context?	56	2	·	97%
C2	Tool assesses partnership process?	55	3	·	95%
C3	Tool documents partnership outcome(s) and/or impact(s)?	58	0	·	100%
C4	Tool monitors the partnering process at multiple moments?	19	37	2	33%
C5	Tool consists of open- and closed-ended questions?	32	25	1	55%
Comprehensiveness domain score			Mean 3.79	Std dev 0.75	Range 2–5
Usability
U1	Tool purpose stated?	58	0	·	100%
U2	Tool freely accessible?	29	29	·	50%
U3	Tool available in a readily usable format?	36	22	·	62%
U4	Tool easy to read and understand?	31	26	1	53%
U5	Tool accompanied by instructions?	33	25	·	57%
Usability domain score			Mean 3.19	Std dev 1.38	Range 1–5
Overall D1–D4 total score			Mean 66.64	Std dev 15.54	Range 35–90

(·) conceptual underpinnings not explicitly identified