## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Tool** & **General** & **Content** & **Construct** & **Internal** & **Cross-Cultural** & **Error and** & **Criterion** & **Hypothesis** & **Sensitivity** & **Translation** & **Process** \\  & **mendation** & **Validity** & **Validity** & **Consistency** & **Adaptation** & **Reliability** & **Validity** & **Testing** & **Sensitivity** & **Translation** & **Process** \\ \hline Shared Mental Model index (SMRM) (SMRM, [[PERSON], 2018], USA) & Very good & Deepful & Doubleful & NA & Doubful & Doubful & Adequate & Inadequate & NA \\ \hline Emergency Medicine ([PERSON], 2019, Saudi Arabia) & & & & & & & & & \\ \hline Cognitive Load Inventory for (CLH) (CJLHD, [[PERSON], 2020], USA) & Very good & Very good & Very good & NA & Doubful & Very good & Very good & Very good & NA \\ \hline \multicolumn{8}{c}{NA: not applicable.} \\ \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Methodological quality of the psychometric properties of the assessment tools: COSMIN (23). Tortosa, ESP, Spain, 2021. Content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency were the most common psychometric properties [24; 29; 31] (Table 3). Two of the studies assessed error and reliability, criterion validity, hypothesis testing, and sensitivity [24; 31]. None of the studies appreciated cross-cultural adaptation or the translation process [24; 29; 31]. Each of the three [24; 29; 31] created a tool for evaluating the handover of critical patients in the emergency department while presenting a transferable framework or common scenario. Assessment Tool 1: Standardization of Pediatric Emergency Handover through the Application of a Shared Mental Model  
The aim of [PERSON] et al. [24] was to assess the face validity; to describe the sustainability of a handover standardization checklist for children aged 0-18 years admitted to the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit, and the Emergency Department of a tertiary referral hospital in the United States; and to compare their results with data obtained one year prior in a previous study. The authors [24] divided their evaluation into three results. The first dealt with the shared mental model index (SMMi), expressed as the percentage of congruence among handover participants on the key patient health data included. This was measured using five short questions answered by the participants immediately after the handoff took place. The second outcome regarded face validity as assessed by participants' perception of four items that were evaluated using a five-point Likert scale. The third involved handover sustainability and the team (participants), which were analyzed by qualitatively comparing the results collected with those obtained a year prior. The evaluation by [PERSON] et al. [24] consisted of 3 domains and 15 items. * **Reliability:** internal consistency was not calculated. The temporal stability was of \"doubtful\" methodological quality [23], and it statistically showed a Kappa index of 0.92, indicating \"very good\" concordance with the tool [32]. * **Validity:** the methodological quality of content validity and hypothesis testing was \"adequate\" [23]. On the other hand, both criterion and construct validity were considered to be of \"doubtful\" methodological quality [23] due to poor statistical analysis of correlations and descriptions of item handling. Regarding sensitivity, the methodological quality was found to be \"inadequate\" [23] as there was no clear description of what happens during the interim period or possible changes in the study participants.