¥Themes are based on authors' categorisation of items raised by focus groups for the purpose of their grouping into common areas.
In the present study, the authors reduced the number of items by constructing Guttman scales in combination with Rasch analysis.
The constructs of the Portuguese and the Spanish versions of SAQLI however were considered comparable with the hypothesised scales by their respective authors although the loading of items on the factors were not entirely similar with original domains [ 21, 22].
20 23 30 31 32 33 DerSimonian and colleagues suggested that "editors could greatly improve the reporting of clinical trials by providing authors with a list of items that they expected to be strictly reported".
Stage 1, calibration, reanalyzed extracted QuickDASH and QuickDASH-9 responses from a previous prospective study, by the authors, of the 30-item DASH (n = 137).
‡If authors of evaluations deemed particular guidance item to be "not applicable" to literature they were assessing, those items were excluded from analysis; for evaluations with zero or one studies in one comparison arm, those evaluations were removed from synthesis because that one arm would determine direction of effect.
First, each author translated the list of items into the French language without discussing this with the other authors.
To select the set of items, three authors (LO, CS and RS) independently scored whether an item: 1) involved the upper extremities, and 2) whether the item measured a type of physical work demands (i.e.: duration, repetition, awkward positions, forceful movements and static muscle contractions).
The original author reviewed the second backward-translation of items with classification (c) and the results were presented in Table 2.
All authors contributed to the study design, generating of items, and revision of the scale.
