A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient‐reported experience measures

• Published in: Health services research 2019-10, Vol.54 (5), p.1023-1035
• Main Authors: Bull, Claudia, Byrnes, Joshua, Hettiarachchi, Ruvini, Downes, Martin
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Appraisal; Bias; Content analysis; Cross-Sectional Studies; Data collection; Design; End users; Error analysis; Extraction; Female; Health care; health care organization and systems; Humans; Male; Measurement; Measuring Patient Experience; Medical care; Medical care surveys; Meta-analysis; Methods; Middle Aged; Patient advocacy; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patient Satisfaction - statistics & numerical data; Patients; Questionnaires; Reliability; Reliability analysis; Reproducibility of Results; Responsiveness; survey research and questionnaire design; Surveys and Questionnaires - standards; Systematic review; systematic reviews/meta‐analyses; United Arab Emirates; United Kingdom; United States; Validity
• ISSN: 0017-9124; 1475-6773; 1475-6773
• DOI: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187

Objectives To identify patient‐reported experience measures (PREMs), 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 PREMs 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 PREMs, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the PREMs. Testing PREM responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of PREMs where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of PREMs is important to understand the clinical relevancy of PREM scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.