Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Table 1 Definitions of the measurement properties and their quality criteria

From: Measurement properties of oral health assessments for non-dental healthcare professionals in older people: a systematic review

Measurement propertyDescription aQuality criteria for measurement properties b
ValidityContent validityTo which degree the construct assesses whether the items are relevant for the construct to be measured+: The target population considers all items in the instrument to be relevant AND to be complete
?: No target population involvement
-: The target population considers the items of the instrument irrelevant OR incomplete
Construct validityStructural validityTo which degree the scores of an instrument are an adequate reflection of the dimensionality+: Factors should explain at least 50% of the variance
?: Explained variance not mentioned
-: Factors explain < 50% of the variance
Hypothesizes testingTo which extent the scores of the instrument are consistent with the theoretically derived hypotheses+: Correlation with an instrument measuring the same construct ≥ 0.50 or at least 75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses AND correlation with related constructs is higher than with unrelated constructs
?: Solely correlations determined with unrelated constructs
-: Correlations with an instrument measuring the same construct <0.50 OR <75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses OR correlation with related constructs is lower than with unrelated constructs
Cross-cultural validityTo which extend the items are an adequate reflection of the original version after translation or culturally adaptation.+: no important DIF between language versions
?: DIF not assessed
-: Important DIF found between language versions
Criterion validityTo what degree the scores of the instrument are an adequate reflection of a ‘gold standard’. The gold standard should fit the purpose of the assessed instrument.+: Convincing arguments that gold standard is ‘’gold” AND correlations with gold standard ≥0.70
?: No convincing argument that gold standard is ‘’gold” OR doubtful design or method
-: Despite adequate design and method, correlation is < 0.70
ReliabilityReliabilityThe proportion of the total variance in the measurements which is because of ‘’true” differences among patients+: ICC/weighted kappa ≥ 0.70 OR Pearson’s r ≥ 0.80
?: Neither ICC/weighted kappa, nor Pearson’s r determined
-: ICC/weighted kappa <0.70 OR Pearson’s r < 0.80
Internal consistencyThe extent to which items in a sub(scale) are inter correlated, thus measuring the same construct+: Cronbach’s α (s) ≥ 0.70
?: Cronbach’s α not determined
-: Cronbach’s α < 0.70
Measurement errorThe systematic and random error of a patient’s score that is not attributed to true changes in the construct to be measured+:MIC <SDC OR MIC outside the LOA OR convincing arguments that agreement is acceptable
?: Doubtful design or method OR MIC not defined AND no convincing arguments that agreement is acceptable
-: MIC≥ SDC OR MIC equals or inside LOA, despite adequate design and method
Responsiveness The ability of the instrument to detect change over time+: Correlation with an instrument measuring the same construct ≥ 0.50 OR at least 75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses OR AUC ≥ 0.70 AND correlation with related constructs is higher than with unrelated constructs
?: Solely correlations determined with unrelated constructs
-: Correlation with an instrument measuring the same construct <0.50 OR <75% of the results are in accordance with the hypotheses or AUC <0.70 OR correlation with related constructs is lower than with unrelated constructs.
  1. DIF Differential item functioning, MIC minimal important change, SDC Smallest detectable change, LOA Limits of agreement, ICC Intra Class Correlation
  2. += positive rating; ?= indeterminate rating; -= negative rating
  3. aDescriptions of the measurement properties are based on Terwee et al (2007)
  4. bTo fit the content of oral health assessments, we combined the quality criteria as used by Weldam et al. (2013) & Terwee (2007)