Table 8

CEFIT results of Beattie and Murphy Instrument Utility Matrix

Aspect of utilityMeasurement property/criteria checklistResultRating of study qualityRating of quality of resultsCombined score of methods and results
ValidityContent validity (COSMIN checklist49 and Terwee)48Items derived from integrative review of the literature and associated theoretical model. Content validity index with a patient and expert group found items were relevant and comprehensive.FairPositive**+
Structural validity (COSMIN checklist49 and Terweel)48Principal component analysis confirmed a unidimensional scale (one-factor solution) accounting for 57.3% variance.ExcellentPositive****+
ReliabilityInternal consistency (COSMIN checklist49 and Terwee)48Cronbach's α 0.78ExcellentPositive****+
CostAdditional aspects of utility scoring criteria in figure 4Number of CEFIT questionnaires needed to ensure reliable data is not yet known. Completion of CEFIT <15 min. Some administrative resource but no specialist resource required. Overall cost-efficiency calculated as moderateNAGood***
AcceptabilityAdditional aspects of utility scoring criteria in figure 4Investigations of participants’ understanding. There are low numbers of missing items (<10%) and adequate response rates (>40%). Testing has not yet been conducted in context (ie, hospital setting).NAPoor*
Educational impactAdditional aspects of utility scoring criteria in figure 4Explanatory or theoretical link between intended and actual use, but no clear evidence yet. Scoring stated and easy to calculate. Feedback is readily available in a format that enables necessary action.NAGood***
  • Ratings of study quality *poor, **fair, ***good, ****excellent ratings of quality of results: (+) positive rating, (−) negative rating, (?) indeterminate rating, mixed (+?).

  • CEFIT, Care Experience Feedback Improvement Tool; COSMIN, Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments.