Table 5 Quality Analysis (Adapted) Outcome Measures Rating Form CanChild Centre for Disability Research, Institute of Applied Health Sciences, McMaster University.

CLINICAL UTILITY

Clarity of Instructions

□ Excellent (clear, comprehensive, concise, and available)

□ Adequate (clear, concise, but lacks some information)

□ Poor (not clear and concise or not available)

SCALE CONSTRUCTION

Item Selection

□ Excellent (included all relevant characteristics of attribute based on comprehensive review and survey of experts)

□ Adequate (included most relevant characteristics of attribute)

□ Poor (convenient sample of characteristics of attribute, or questionnaire not available)

STANDARDIZATION

Manual

□ Excellent: published manual which outlines specific procedures for administration; scoring and interpretation; evidence of reliability and validity

□ Adequate: manual available and generally complete but some information is lacking or unclear regarding administration; scoring and interpretation; evidence of reliability and validity

□ 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

□ Excellent: > 2 well-designed reliability studies completed with adequate to excellent reliability

□ Adequate: 1 to 2 well-designed reliability studies completed with adequate to excellent reliability

□ Poor: reliability studies poorly completed, or reliability studies showing poor levels of reliability

□ 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

□ Excellent: more than 2 well-designed validity studies supporting the measure's validity

□ Adequate: 1 to 2 well-designed validity studies supporting the measure's validity

□ Poor: validity studies poorly completed or did not support the measure's validity

□ 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

□ 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.

□ Adequate: 1-2 studies of responsiveness

□ Poor: studies of responsiveness poorly completed or did not support the measure's responsiveness

□ No evidence available

OVERALL UTILITY

□ Excellent: adequate to excellent clinical utility, easily available, excellent reliability and validity

□ Adequate: adequate to excellent clinical utility, easily available, adequate to excellent reliability and adequate to excellent validity

□ Poor: poor clinical utility, not easily available, poor reliability and validity