Skip to main content

Table 3 Modified COSMIN checklist for methodological quality assessment

From: The reliability of WorkWell Systems Functional Capacity Evaluation: a systematic review

  Requirements Excellent Good Fair Poor
1 Was the percentage of missing items given? Percentage of missing items described Percentage of missing items not described - -
2 Was there a description of how missing items were handled? Described how missing items were handled Not described but it can be deduced how missing items were handled Not clear how missing items were handled -
3 Was the sample size included in the analysis adequate? Adequate sample size (≥ 100) Good sample size (50–99) Moderate sample size (30–49) Small sample size (< 30)
4 Were the administrations independent? Independent measurements Assumable that the measurements were independent Doubtful whether the measurements were independent Measurements not independent
5 Was the time interval stated? Time interval stated - Time interval not stated -
6 Were patients stable in interim period on the construct to be measured? Patients were stable (evidence provided) Assumable that patients were stable Unclear whether patients were stable Patients were not stable
7 Was the time interval appropriate? Time interval between test-retest ranges from 3 to 21 days - Doubtful whether time interval was appropriate Time interval between test-retest is less than 3 or more than 21 days
8 Were the tests conditions similar for both measurements? e.g., type of administration, environment, and instructions Test conditions were similar (evidence provided) Assumable that test conditions were similar Unclear whether test conditions were similar Test conditions were not similar
9 Were there any important flaws in the design or methods of the study? No other important methodological flaws in the design or execution of the study - Other minor methodological flaws in the design or execution of the study Other important methodological flaws in the design or execution of the study
10 For continuous scores: Was ICC calculated? ICC calculated and model or formula of the ICC is described ICC calculated but model or formula of the ICC not described. Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient calculated with evidence provided that no systematic change has occurred Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficient calculated without evidence provided that no systematic change has occurred or with evidence that systematic change has occurred No ICC or Pearson or Spearman correlations calculated
11 For dichotomous/ nominal/ordinal scores: Was kappa calculated? Kappa calculated - - Only percentage agreement calculated
  1. ICC, intraclass correlation coefficient. Items and definitions of quality levels are according to Terwee et al. [18]. Items 5, 6, and 7 were only applied on intra-rater and test-retest reliability studies. Specification of appropriate time intervals follows Gouttebarge et al. [15].