“…Meanwhile, 25 systematic reviews ( Wales, Clemson, Lannin & Cameron, 2016) used standardised quality checklists such as the COS-MIN and Terwee's Checklist to evaluate the quality of the psychometric reporting. Fifteen reviews (Bartula & Sherman, 2013;de Baets et al, 2017;Gouttebarge, Wind, Kuijer & Frings-Dresen, 2004;Harvey, Robin, Morris, Graham & Baker, 2008;Holden, Jones, Baker, Boersma & Kluger, 2016;Innes, 2006;Innes & Straker, 1999a,b;Lewandowski, Toliver-Sokol & Palermo, 2011;Lotzin et al, 2015;Monod et al, 2011;Peer & Tenhula, 2010;Swinkels, Dijkstra & Bouter, 2005;Tse, Douglas, Lentin & Carey, 2013;Williams et al, 2007) used a non-standardised checklist (i.e. researcher-developed or adapted), and the remaining 18 just descriptively reported the psychometric evidence gathered.…”