Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Oct;54(5):1023-1035.
doi: 10.1111/1475-6773.13187. Epub 2019 Jun 19.

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures

Claudia Bull  1   2 , Joshua Byrnes  1   2 , Ruvini Hettiarachchi  1   2 , Martin Downes  1   2
Affiliations

A systematic review of the validity and reliability of patient-reported experience measures

Claudia Bull et al. Health Serv Res. 2019 Oct.

Abstract

Objectives: To identify patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), assess their validity and reliability, and assess any bias in the study design of PREM validity and reliability testing.

Data sources/study setting: Articles reporting on PREM development and testing sourced from MEDLINE, CINAHL and Scopus databases up to March 13, 2018.

Study design: Systematic review.

Data collection/extraction methods: Critical appraisal of PREM study design was undertaken using the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS). Critical appraisal of PREM validity and reliability was undertaken using a revised version of the COSMIN checklist.

Principal findings: Eighty-eight PREMs were identified, spanning across four main health care contexts. PREM 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.

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

Keywords: health care organization and systems; reliability; survey research and questionnaire design; systematic reviews/meta-analyses; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PRISMA diagram of patient‐reported experience measure search [Color figure can be viewed at wileyonlinelibrary.com]
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Tremblay D, Roberge D, Berbiche D. Determinants of patient‐reported experience of cancer services responsiveness. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:425. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schembri S. Experiencing health care service quality: through patients’ eyes. Aust Health Rev. 2015;39(1):109‐116. - PubMed
    1. Ahmed F, Burt J, Roland M. Measuring patient experience: concepts and methods. Patient. 2014;7(3):235‐241. - PubMed
    1. Kingsley C, Patel S. Patient‐reported outcome measures and patient‐reported experience measures. Bja Educ. 2017;17(4):8.
    1. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality . What is patient experience? 2017; https://www.ahrq.gov/cahps/about-cahps/patient-experience/index.html. Accessed July 18, 2018.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources