Qualitative Assessment of Information Provided for the Checklist Items
| Framework/Tool↓ | Checklist items | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Content validity | Reliability | Feasibility | Practice investment | |||||||
| Literature Reviewed | Expert Involvement | Outcomes of Content Validity Study Such as Level of Agreement | Described in Sufficient Detail to Permit Replication? | Inter-reliability/Intrareliability | Pilot Study | If Not, Was the Tool Otherwise Applied | Other (Empirical) Evidence of Measurement Quality? | Time Investment | Costs | |
| Huisartsgeneeskundige Academiserings Lineaal Maastricht (HALMA),† Doorn et al. (1999) | + | + | + | − | − | + | − | − | − | |
| Objective-based framework,* Clement et al. (2000) | + | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Tool kit,* Harvey et al. (2000) | + | + | − | + | − | − | +‡ | − | − | − |
| PCRTA,† Carter et al. (2002) | + | + | − | + | −§ | + | + | + | + | |
* Primary care research network level.
† Practice level.
‡ The Tool kit was used once in a comparative case study of 5 primary care research networks in the United Kingdom.
§ Carter et al reported that reliability and validity were qualitatively evaluated after the Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA) pilot study by an independent researcher, but reported no outcomes of inter-reliability or intrareliability.