CLINICAL UTILITY | Clarity of Instructions | â–¡ Excellent (clear, comprehensive, concise, and available) â–¡ Adequate (clear, concise, but lacks some information) â–¡ Poor (not clear and concise or not available) |
SCALE CONSTRUCTION | Item Selection | â–¡ Excellent (included all relevant characteristics of attribute based on comprehensive review and survey of experts) â–¡ Adequate (included most relevant characteristics of attribute) â–¡ Poor (convenient sample of characteristics of attribute, or questionnaire not available) |
STANDARDIZATION | Manual | â–¡ Excellent: published manual which outlines specific procedures for administration; scoring and interpretation; evidence of reliability and validity â–¡ Adequate: manual available and generally complete but some information is lacking or unclear regarding administration; scoring and interpretation; evidence of reliability and validity â–¡ Poor: no manual available or manual with unclear administration; scoring and interpretation; no evidence of reliability and validity |
RELIABILITY | Rigor of standardization studies for reliability | â–¡ Excellent: > 2 well-designed reliability studies completed with adequate to excellent reliability â–¡ Adequate: 1 to 2 well-designed reliability studies completed with adequate to excellent reliability â–¡ Poor: reliability studies poorly completed, or reliability studies showing poor levels of reliability â–¡ No evidence available |
 | Reliability Information | Type of Reliability Statistic Used Value Rating (excellent, adequate or poor) NB Excellent: > .80 Adequate:.60 -.79, Poor: < .60 |
VALIDITY | Rigor of standardization studies for validity | â–¡ Excellent: more than 2 well-designed validity studies supporting the measure's validity â–¡ Adequate: 1 to 2 well-designed validity studies supporting the measure's validity â–¡ Poor: validity studies poorly completed or did not support the measure's validity â–¡ No evidence available |
 | Content Validity | □ Excellent: judgmental or statistical method (e.g. factor analysis) was used the measure is comprehensive and includes items suited to the measurement purpose Method: □ judgmental □ statistical □ Adequate: has content validity but no specific method was used □ Poor: instrument is not comprehensive □ No evidence available |
 | Construct Validity | □ Excellent: more than 2 well designed studies have shown that the instrument conforms to prior theoretical relationships among characteristics or individuals □ Adequate: 1 to 2 studies demonstrate confirmation of theoretical formulations □ Poor: construct validation poorly completed, or did not support measure's construct validity □ No evidence available |
 | Criterion Validity | □ Concurrent □ Predictive Criterion Measure used: □ Excellent: > 2 well-designed studies showing adequate agreement with a criterion or gold standard □ Adequate: 1-2 studies demonstrate adequate agreement with a criterion or gold standard measure □ Poor: criterion validation poorly completed or did not support measure's criterion validity □ No evidence available |
RESPONSIVENESS | Â | â–¡ Excellent: more than 2 well-designed studies showing strong hypothesized relationships between changes on the measure and other measures of change on the same attribute. â–¡ Adequate: 1-2 studies of responsiveness â–¡ Poor: studies of responsiveness poorly completed or did not support the measure's responsiveness â–¡ No evidence available |
OVERALL UTILITY | Â | â–¡ Excellent: adequate to excellent clinical utility, easily available, excellent reliability and validity â–¡ Adequate: adequate to excellent clinical utility, easily available, adequate to excellent reliability and adequate to excellent validity â–¡ Poor: poor clinical utility, not easily available, poor reliability and validity |