Premium
A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures
Author(s) -
Bull Claudia,
Byrnes Joshua,
Hettiarachchi Ruvini,
Downes Martin
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
health services research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.706
H-Index - 121
eISSN - 1475-6773
pISSN - 0017-9124
DOI - 10.1111/1475-6773.13187
Subject(s) - cinahl , criterion validity , checklist , critical appraisal , reliability (semiconductor) , validity , medline , content validity , systematic review , internal validity , concurrent validity , psychology , applied psychology , medicine , construct validity , psychometrics , internal consistency , clinical psychology , nursing , psychological intervention , alternative medicine , power (physics) , pathology , quantum mechanics , political science , cognitive psychology , physics , law
Objectives To identify patient‐reported experience measures ( PREM s), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing. Data Sources/Study Setting Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE , CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018. Study Design Systematic review. Data Collection/Extraction Methods Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross‐Sectional Studies ( AXIS ). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist. Principal Findings Eighty‐eight PREM s were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM validity and reliability was supported by appropriate study designs. Internal consistency (n = 58, 65.2 percent), structural validity (n = 49, 55.1 percent), and content validity (n = 34, 38.2 percent) were the most frequently reported validity and reliability tests. Conclusions Careful consideration should be given when selecting PREM s, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREM s. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREM s where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREM s is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.