Volume 54 | Number 5 | October 2019

Abstract List

Claudia Bull BNutr, Joshua Byrnes B Comm, B Econ, M Econ Stud, M Hlth Econ, PhD, Ruvini Hettiarachchi BDS, MSc, MD, Martin Downes MVB, PhD, PGCertPH


To identify patient‐reported experience measures (s), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of validity and reliability testing.

Data Sources/Study Setting

Articles reporting on development and testing sourced from , and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018.

Study Design

Systematic review.

Data Collection/Extraction Methods

Critical appraisal of study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross‐Sectional Studies (). Critical appraisal of validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the checklist.

Principal Findings

Eighty‐eight s were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. 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.


Careful consideration should be given when selecting s, particularly as seven of the 10 validity and reliability criteria were not undertaken in ≥50 percent of the s. Testing responsiveness should be prioritized for the application of s where the end user is measuring change over time. Assessing measurement error/agreement of s is important to understand the clinical relevancy of scores used in a health care evaluation capacity.