Mental Health Screening Instruments for Adult Refugees in Resettlement: A Systematic Review of Psychometric Properties

Different tools have been developed and validated to measure unfinished nursing care. However, no systematic review of the psychometric properties has been performed describing the quality of the methods used to estimate their validity. (a) To identify tools measuring unfinished nursing care that have undergone validation processes; (b) to evaluate critically the quality of the methods used in ascertaining their psychometric properties; and (c) to compare the estimated psychometric properties of these tools. A systematic review of the psychometric properties also evaluating their methodological quality was performed by following the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guideline for systematic reviews. The databases Medline, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, PubMed, Google and Google Scholar were searched up to 30 June 2018. Data extraction was performed following the predetermined eligibility criteria. Eight properties and their methodological quality were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments criteria. A total of 20 studies reported validation data regarding three family of tools: the Missed Care Survey (MISSCARE), the Basal Extent of Rationing of Nursing Care (BERNCA) and the Task Undone scale (TU-7). The most estimated psychometric properties across studies were internal consistency, followed by structural validity, content validity, and cross-cultural validity. The less evaluated psychometric properties were reliability, hypothesis testing and convergent and criterion validity. The psychometric properties of the investigated tools showed a more than acceptable quality, as did the methodologies used to estimate these properties. The MISSCARE survey is the most widely used tool validated across countries to date. Evaluating the concurrent reliability of the tools available is strongly recommended to assess their effectiveness in measuring the same phenomenon.

To identify, synthesize and evaluate the psychometric properties of instruments that measure dating violence (DV). Psychometric systematic literature review. The databases SCOPUS, PubMed, CINAHL, PsychINFO, and Web of Science were searched up to December 2021. We evaluated the psychometric properties of the instruments included and their methodological quality using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist and Terwee's quality criteria. The Modified Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to rate the best available evidence. The entire process was carried out by three independent reviewers. The review was registered at PROSPERO (registry number CRD42020161137). A total of 35 studies evaluated 29 instruments measuring DV. Most studies reported data on content validity, structural validity and internal consistency. No studies tested measurement error and responsiveness. Only one instruments tested cross-cultural validity. It is of interest that the data reported for content validity were the worst evaluated, despite the fact that content validity is one of the key properties in developing and validating the measuring instrument. There are a significant number of instruments published in this field, and it is important to evaluate and show their psychometric properties to help select evidence-based instruments. After carrying out the evaluation following the COSMIN guidelines, the authors of this study recommend that the three most suitable instruments are CADRI, WAS/Chinese version and PMWI-SF/Portuguese version (in that order). Identifying and evaluating DV is the first step in designing effective interventions. To achieve this, it is necessary to have validated instruments with suitable psychometric properties. To date, this is the only published systematic review evaluating the psychometric properties of instruments that measure DV which reports on their methodological qualities. The results we found show a growing trend in developing new instruments, with the most suitable approach being to make a cross-cultural adaptation and validation of the instrument that best suits the value to be measured. In this way, data can be compared between different countries and standardized health care plans and policies designed to achieve better health outcomes. This study may help future researchers to choose the most suitable instrument for their research.

Research focus has transitioned from interprofessional collaborative practice among qualified health practitioners to the involvement of pre-qualifying students in practicing interprofessional education. It is essential to establish outcome measures to enhance the seamless integration of interprofessional education and collaborative practice. The aim of this study was to develop a culturally appropriate quality measure for assessing interprofessional education and collaborative practice for health practitioners and students in Indonesia by performing cross-cultural validation of the collaborative practice assessment tool (CPAT). The consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) standards of psychometric properties were used to guide the study. The evaluation of the psychometric properties was conducted, involving meticulous structural validity evaluation based on a three-step factorial analysis (exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis) and measurement invariance. The parameters analyzed were related to the design requirements of a measure (i.e., targeted population, study sample, and size), the internal structure (structural validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariances), and hypotheses testing for construct validity based on a validated conceptual framework. This study involved 266 practitioners and 232 students. The COSMIN standards for general design requirements were fulfilled. Structural validity confirmed the 7-factor of 48-item structure; measurement invariances indicated configural, metric, and scalar invariants in both practitioner and student cohorts. Construct validity was confirmed by meeting the COSMIN requirement, with over 75% of the tested hypotheses accepted. In conclusion, the findings suggest the newly validated Indonesian CPAT has good psychometric properties concerning internal structure (i.e., structural validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariance) and hypotheses testing, and is therefore a quality measure for assessing interprofessional education and collaborative practice with health practitioners and students in Indonesia.

Outpatient postpartum recovery is an underexplored area of obstetrics. There is currently no consensus regarding which patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) clinicians and researchers should use to evaluate postpartum recovery. To evaluate PROMs of outpatient postpartum recovery using Consensus-Based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. An initial literature search performed in July 2019 identified postpartum recovery PROMs and validation studies. A secondary search in July 2020 identified additional validation studies. Both searches were performed using 4 databases (Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and CINAHL), with no date limiters. Studies with PROMs evaluating more than 3 proposed outpatient postpartum recovery domains were considered. Studies were included if they assessed any psychometric measurement property of the included PROMs in the outpatient postpartum setting. The PROMs were assessed for the following 8 psychometric measurement properties, as defined by COSMIN: content validity, structural validity, internal consistency, cross-cultural validity and measurement invariance, reliability, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Psychometric measurement properties were evaluated in each included study using the COSMIN criteria by assessing (1) the quality of the methods (very good, adequate, doubtful, inadequate, or not assessed); (2) overall rating of results (sufficient, insufficient, inconsistent, or indeterminate); (3) level of evidence assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations assessment tool; and (4) level of recommendation, which included class A (recommended for use; showed adequate content validity with at least low-quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency), class B (not class A or class C), or class C (not recommended). In total, 15 PROMs (7 obstetric specific and 8 non-obstetric specific) were identified, evaluating outpatient postpartum recovery in 46 studies involving 19 165 women. The majority of psychometric measurement properties of the included PROMs were graded as having very-low-level or low-level evidence. The best-performing PROMs that received class A recommendations were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF. The remainder of the evaluated PROMs had insufficient evidence to make recommendations regarding their use (and received class B recommendations). This review found that the best-performing PROMs currently available to evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery were the Maternal Concerns Questionnaire, the Postpartum Quality of Life tool, and the World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF; however, these tools all had significant limitations. This study highlights the need to focus future efforts on robustly developing and validating a new PROM that may comprehensively evaluate outpatient postpartum recovery.

PurposeThe Victorian Institute of Sport Assessment (Achilles tendon—VISA-A, greater trochanteric pain syndrome—VISA-G, proximal hamstring tendinopathy—VISA-H, patellar tendon—VISA-P) questionnaires are widely used in research and clinical practice; however, no systematic reviews have formally evaluated their content, structural, and cross-cultural validity evidence. The measurement properties referring to content, structural and cross-cultural validity of the VISA questionnaires were appraised and synthesized.MethodsThe systematic review was conducted according to Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. PubMed, Cochrane, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SportsDiscus, grey literature, and reference lists were searched. Development studies and cross-cultural adaptations (12 languages) assessing content or structural validity of the VISA questionnaires were included and two reviewers assessed their methodological quality. Evidence for content (relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility), structural, and cross-cultural validity was synthesized. A modified Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was applied to evidence synthesis.ResultsThe VISA-A presented very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, and inconsistent comprehensibility. VISA-G displayed moderate-quality evidence for sufficient comprehensibility and very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance and comprehensiveness. The VISA-P presented very-low-quality evidence of sufficient relevance, insufficient comprehensiveness, and inconsistent comprehensibility, while VISA-H presented very-low evidence of insufficient content validity. VISA-A displayed low-quality evidence for structural validity concerning unidimensionality and internal structure, while VISA-H presented low-quality evidence of insufficient unidimensionality. The structural validity of VISA-G and VISA-P were indeterminate and inconsistent, respectively. Internal consistency for VISA-G, VISA-H, and VISA-P was indeterminate. No studies evaluated cross-cultural validity, while measurement invariance across sexes was assessed in one study.ConclusionsOnly very-low-quality evidence exists for the content and structural validity of VISA questionnaires when assessing the severity of symptoms and disability in patients with lower limb tendinopathies.Level of evidenceIV.RegistrationPROSPERO reference—CRD42019126595.

The Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand (DASH) Questionnaire is a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) that has been translated and cross-culturally adapted to at least 50 languages. Since the measure was developed in 1996, many researchers have reported on the construct validity (including structural and cross-cultural validity) of this instrument following translation and cross-cultural adaptation. The aim of this scoping review was to identify the methods used for the psychometric evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. The updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews and the PRISMA Extension for scoping reviews checklist was utilised. EBSCOHost (Academic Search Premier, Africa Wide, CINAHL, E-Journals and Medline), PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for articles (published between 1996-2022) and considered against the eligibility criteria. The scoping review collated evidence across 50 articles (37 language versions) of the evaluation of structural and cross-cultural validity of the DASH questionnaire. Three articles conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to assess structural validity, and none performed Multiple Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MGCFA) to assess cross-cultural validity. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) taxonomy propose that structural validity is best evaluated through CFA, with prior evidence of dimensionality. Additionally, cross-cultural validity (measurement invariance) is to be evaluated through MGCFA. This review identified that CFA is utilised infrequently and that to date cross-cultural validity has not been appropriately assessed for translations of the DASH questionnaire.

Stigma against sexual and gender minorities (SGM) populations has serious negative health effects for SGM populations. Despite the growing need for accurate stigma measurement in SGM, there are insufficient valid measurement instruments. Moreover, the lack of consistency in construct usage makes comparisons across studies particularly challenging. A critical review and comparative evaluation of the psychometric properties of the various stigma measures for SGM is necessary to advance our understanding regarding stigma measurement against/among SGMs. Based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted in 4 bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science) for empirical articles published from 2010 to 2022 that evaluated the psychometrics properties of measurement instruments assessing stigma against SGMs. The screening, extraction, and scoring of the psychometric properties and methodological quality of selected instruments were performed by following the established standards and COSMIN (Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments) checklist, respectively. Of the 2031 studies identified, 19 studies were included that reported psychometric properties of 17 measurement instruments. All instruments, except two, were developed for SGMs (n = 15/17). Most instruments included men who have sex with men (MSM) or gay men (n = 11/15), whereas less than half of the instruments assessed stigma among SGM women (n = 6/15). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) and content validity was reported for all instruments (n = 17); construct and structural validity was also reported for majority of the instruments (n = 15 and 10, respectively). However, test-retest reliability and criterion validity was reported for very few instruments (n = 5 each). Based on the COSMIN checklist, we identified the most psychometrically and methodologically robust instruments for each of the five stigma types: combined stigma, enacted stigma, internalized stigma, intersectional stigma, and perceived stigma. For each stigma type, except anticipated stigma, at least one instrument demonstrated strong promise for use in empirical research; however, the selection of instrument depends on the target population and context of the study. Findings indicated a growing use of instruments assessing multiple stigma types. Future studies need to develop intersectional stigma instruments that account for the multiple and intersecting social identities of SGMs. Additionally, most existing instruments would benefit from further psychometric testing, especially on test-retest reliability, criterion validity, adaptability to different LGBTQIA + populations and cultures.

BackgroundPhysical literacy (PL) in childhood is essential for a healthy active lifestyle, with teachers playing a critical role in guiding its development. Teachers can assist children to acquire the skills, confidence, and creativity required to perform diverse movements and physical activities. However, to detect and directly intervene on the aspects of children’s PL that are suboptimal, teachers require valid and reliable measures. This systematic review critically evaluates the psychometric properties of teacher proxy-report instruments for assessing one or more of the 30 elements within the four domains (physical, psychological, cognitive, social) of the Australian Physical Literacy Framework (APLF), in children aged 5–12 years. Secondary aims were to: examine alignment of each measure (and relevant items) with the APLF and provide recommendations for teachers in assessing PL.MethodsSeven electronic databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL Complete, Education Source, Global Health, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, and SPORTDiscus) were systematically searched originally in October 2019, with an updated search in April 2021. Eligible studies were peer-reviewed English language publications that sampled a population of children with mean age between 5 and 12 years and focused on developing and evaluating at least one psychometric property of a teacher proxy-report instrument for assessing one or more of the 30 APLF elements. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance was followed for the conduct and reporting of this review. The methodological quality of included studies and quality of psychometric properties of identified tools were evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance. Alignment of each measure (and relevant items) with the APLF domains and 30 elements was appraised.ResultsDatabase searches generated 61,412 citations; reduced to 41 studies that evaluated the psychometric properties of 24 teacher proxy-report tools. Six tools were classified as single domain measures (i.e. assessing a single domain of the APLF), eleven as dual-domain measures, and seven as tri-domain measures. No single tool captured all four domains and 30 elements of the APLF. Tools contained items that aligned with all physical, psychological, and social elements; however, four cognitive elements were not addressed by any measure. No tool was assessed for all nine psychometric properties outlined by COSMIN. Included studies reported a median of 3 out of nine psychometric properties. Most reported psychometric properties were construct validity (n = 32; 78% of studies), structural validity (n = 26; 63% of studies), and internal consistency (n = 25; 61% of studies). There was underreporting of content validity, cross-cultural validity, measurement error, and responsiveness. Psychometric data across tools were mostly indeterminate for construct validity, structural validity, and internal consistency.ConclusionsThere is limited evidence to fully support the use of a specific teacher proxy-report tool in practice. Further psychometric testing and detailed reporting of methodological aspects in future validity and reliability studies is needed. Tools have been designed to assess some elements of the framework. However, no comprehensive teacher proxy-report tool exists to assess all 30 elements of the APLF, demonstrating the need for a new tool. It is our recommendation that such tools be developed and psychometrically tested.Trial registrationThis systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO international prospective register of systematic reviews, with registration number CRD42019130936.

ABSTRACTAwareness of the climate crisis has been linked to a range of distressing emotions and multiple measurement tools have been created to assess climate change-related distress. A systematic review of psychometric properties of climate-related distress measures was conducted following the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines. Forty-four studies assessing seven measures were evaluated based on their results and the methodological quality of the studies testing each psychometric property. The measures varied with regard to the climate-related distress construct they assessed. Content validity was poor for most measures due to the methods of their development and strict COSMIN criteria; an exception was the Eco-Anxiety Questionnaire, which had promising results but was only assessed in one study. Most of the studies (n = 29) evaluated the Climate Change Anxiety Scale, which had inconsistent results for structural validity, but was the only measure to have some evidence of cross-cultural validity. Selection of a measure should be informed by the construct of interest to the researcher or clinician, or other features of the measure. Further research is required in different subgroups, across cultures, evaluating more psychometric properties in higher quality studies. All measures would benefit from improvements in content validity.

ObjectivesPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are often used to evaluate the outcome of treatment in patients with distal radial fractures. Which PROM to select is often based on assessment of measurement properties, such as validity and reliability. Measurement properties are assessed in clinimetric studies, and results are often reviewed without considering the methodological quality of these studies. Our aim was to systematically review the methodological quality of clinimetric studies that evaluated measurement properties of PROMs used in patients with distal radial fractures, and to make recommendations for the selection of PROMs based on the level of evidence of each individual measurement property.MethodsA systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMbase, CINAHL and PsycINFO databases to identify relevant clinimetric studies. Two reviewers independently assessed the methodological quality of the studies on measurement properties, using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Level of evidence (strong / moderate / limited / lacking) for each measurement property per PROM was determined by combining the methodological quality and the results of the different clinimetric studies.ResultsIn all, 19 out of 1508 identified unique studies were included, in which 12 PROMs were rated. The Patient-rated wrist evaluation (PRWE) and the Disabilities of Arm, Shoulder and Hand questionnaire (DASH) were evaluated on most measurement properties. The evidence for the PRWE is moderate that its reliability, validity (content and hypothesis testing), and responsiveness are good. The evidence is limited that its internal consistency and cross-cultural validity are good, and its measurement error is acceptable. There is no evidence for its structural and criterion validity. The evidence for the DASH is moderate that its responsiveness is good. The evidence is limited that its reliability and the validity on hypothesis testing are good. There is no evidence for the other measurement properties.ConclusionAccording to this systematic review, there is, at best, moderate evidence that the responsiveness of the PRWE and DASH are good, as are the reliability and validity of the PRWE. We recommend these PROMs in clinical studies in patients with distal radial fractures; however, more clinimetric studies of higher methodological quality are needed to adequately determine the other measurement properties.Cite this article: Dr Y. V. Kleinlugtenbelt. Are validated outcome measures used in distal radial fractures truly valid?: A critical assessment using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist. Bone Joint Res 2016;5:153–161. DOI: 10.1302/2046-3758.54.2000462.

To identify available instruments for assessing cancer patients' spiritual needs and to examine their psychometric properties using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. Cancer patients frequently have significant spiritual needs. The nurse plays an integral role in assessing the patient's spiritual needs as part of providing holistic care. It is crucial to assess these needs using appropriate and reliable instruments. A systematic review based on COSMIN methodology. Seven electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, ProQuest, CNKI and WANFANG) were systematically searched from inception until 14 February 2023. Two authors independently screened eligible literature, extracted data and evaluated methodological and psychometric quality. This systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA checklist. Sixteen studies have reported 16 different versions of the instruments. None of the instruments were properly assessed for all psychometric properties, nor were measurement error, responsiveness and cross-cultural validity/measurement invariance reported. All of the instruments failed to meet the COSMIN quality criteria for content validity. The quality of evidence for structural validity and/or internal consistency in five instruments did not meet the COSMIN criteria. Eventually, five instruments were not recommended, and 11 were only weakly recommended. Instruments to assess spiritual needs exhibited limited reliability and validity. The Spiritual Care Needs Scale is provisionally recommended for research and clinical settings, but its limitations regarding content validity and cross-cultural application must be considered in practice. Future research should further revise the content of available instruments and comprehensively and correctly test their psychometric properties. The review findings will provide evidence for healthcare professionals to select instruments for recognising spiritual needs in cancer patients. This study is a systematic review with no patient or public participation.

To systematically review measurement properties of Arabic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess activity and participation in children with and without health conditions. Four databases were searched. Arabic PROMs with focus on activity and/or participation constructs were selected. Data on measurement properties were extracted and the methodological quality of the studies was assessed by COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. Of the total 149 articles screened, only 10 studies involving 10 measures that assessed activity and/or participation in children with or without health conditions were included. The focus of all PROMs is primarily on the activity of daily living at home and/or school, but dimensions of measurement differed across PROMs. None of the PROMs demonstrated sufficient properties for all psychometrics. The most studied psychometric property was internal consistency, whereas the least studied psychometric property was structural validity. Responsiveness was not investigated in any of the studies included. Despite the presence of Arabic PROMs on activity and participation for children, none of the reviewed measures satisfied all psychometric properties. Clinicians and researchers are encouraged to carefully select PROMs that are psychometrically sound and appropriate for the construct being measured.

Background The Sensory Profile-2 (SP-2) is the recently revised set of scales that provide information about a child’s responses to different types of sensory stimuli. Aim To examine the methodological quality and psychometric properties of the SP-2 using the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and Quality Criteria for Health Status Questionnaires (QCHSQ). Materials and Methods The methodological quality and psychometric properties for each of the SP-2 scales were examined by two assessors using the COSMIN and QCHSQ. Results The COSMIN revealed that the SP-2 demonstrated strengths in patient-related outcome measure design and internal consistency. However, hypothesis testing, cross-cultural validity and structural validity (construct validity) were notable shortcomings. The QCHSQ indicated the SP-2 has merits in its content validity and construct validity. The SP-2 manual reported insufficient evidence of its responsiveness, interpretability and criterion validity. Conclusion Informed assessment selection is fundamental for evidence-based and quality occupational therapy practice provision. Overall, the SP-2 is considered to have adequate psychometric properties, however users should be mindful of the identified shortcomings. Significance The review and critique of the SP-2 adds to the body of knowledge about the revised instrument and provides an objective perspective about its strengths and weaknesses.

Purpose Palliative care is constantly increasing around the world. The knowledge and skills of future physicians in this area are crucial. This study evaluates the psychometric properties of knowledge and skills questionnaires used in palliative care, validated by physicians or medical students based on the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) methodology. Methods A systematic review was carried out in Cosmin Databases, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, SciELO, Cinahl, and Medline up to September 2020 (updated June 2021), based on the COSMIN methodology and PRISMA recommendations. The psychometric properties of each included questionnaire were identified. Methodological quality, quality of results, and quality of evidence were evaluated. Results The search strategy yielded 12 questionnaires assessing the knowledge and skills of physicians or medical students. The Palliative Care Knowledge Questionnaire for PEACE (PEACE-Q) and Palliative Care Knowledge Test (PCKT) were the instruments with the highest scores for methodological quality, quality of results, and quality of evidence-based on the COSMIN methodology. Conclusions PEACE-Q and PCKT should be the preferred choice to assess palliative care knowledge and skills in physicians. In-depth studies following COSMIN validation criteria are recommended to improve the psychometric properties and cross-cultural validation of the questionnaires.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important measure of disease status and represents a holistic approach to delivering patient-centered care. We conducted a scoping review of HRQoL patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and evaluated their psychometric properties. Randomized trials and observational studies that developed and validated HRQoL PROMs for adults with ischaemic heart disease (IHD), aortic stenosis (AS), atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), or generic CVD were included, published from inception of databases to 8 February 2025 using PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase. Independent reviewers selected and extracted the psychometric properties of each PROM in accordance with the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist: content validity, reliability, internal consistency, structural validity, criterion/convergent, cross-cultural validity, measurement error, hypothesis testing, and responsiveness. Each PROM was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Of 9430 articles, 220 studies for 38 different PROMs were included (HF n = 17, 45%; AF n = 11, 29%; IHD n = 7, 18%; generic n = 2, 5%; AS n = 1, 3%). Eleven PROMs (29%) satisfied all nine COSMIN criteria; the majority (n = 19, 50%) required further validation and eight were deemed inadequate for clinical use (21%). This scoping review of HRQoL PROMs in individuals with common CVDs found evidence that many PROMs do not fulfill all nine COSMIN criteria for methodological quality, and for some CVDs there is a limited choice of suitable PROMs for HRQoL measurement. There is an opportunity to improve HRQoL evaluation for use within routine care and research.