Advertisement
Table 2 Structured item development criteria used to assess quality of items
| # | Criteria to assess item quality | Possible outcome | Acceptable outcome to retain item |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | How difficult is the item for respondents endorse the maximum score | Very difficult; Moderately difficult; Easy | All three possible outcomes. Author sought to develop constructs that contained items with a range of difficulty |
| 2 | How comprehensible is the item for caregivers with high and low literacy | Comprehensible; Contains words that may be difficult for caregivers to understand | Comprehensible |
| 3 | How relevant is the item for respondents of different ages | Relevant to caregivers ages 18 years and above; Not relevant to specific age groups (e.g., elderly) | Relevant to caregivers ages 18 years and above |
| 4 | How pertinent is the item to the associated content area | Critical/Core; Important; Relevant | Critical/Core; Important |
| 5 | How relevant is the item to all members of the target population (i.e., caregivers of adults with cancer) | Relevant to caregivers across the cancer spectrum; Specific to caregiving experiences along cancer spectrum | Relevant to caregivers across cancer spectrum |
| 6 | How independent is the item to other items | Moderately independent; Too closely related to one or more items | Moderately independent |
| 7 | How well does the item fit with other items in the construct | Fits well; Different content or meaning to other items in construct | Fits well |
| 8 | Does the item capture a single idea (or two closely related ideas) | Yes; No | Yes |
| 9 | How minimal are the information processing demands | One or two processing demands; More than one or two processing demands | One or two processing demands |
| 10 | Does the item stem correspond to the response scale | Yes; No | Yes |
