Background: In recent years we have gained considerable understanding about the concept of research utilization. Despite these gains in the theoretical base, measuring research use has not been adequately addressed. Objectives: To systematically review the psychometric properties of research utilization instruments used with healthcare providers, decision makers, and in healthcare organizations. Methods: Twelve online bibliographic databases were searched: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, OCLC Papers First, OCLC WorldCat, Sociological Abstracts, Proquest Dissertation Abstracts, and ABI Inform. Handsearching of specialized journals as well as an ancestry search of relevant articles was also conducted. Articles retrieved were restricted to those published in English, Danish, Swedish and Norwegian. Results: A total of 42,753 titles were identified through database and manual searches, of which 501 were retrieved. Of these 501 articles, 109 satisfied our inclusion criteria. A unitary approach to validity assessment (‘standards’ for Educational/Psychological Testing) was undertaken whereby empirical results were classified as supporting validity evidence when the study explicitly addressed: test content (construct-under-representation and construct-irrelevant content), response process (how respondents interpret, process, and elaborate upon item content and if this behaviour is in accordance with the construct), internal structure (associations among items and if the data supports dimensionality), and relationships to other variables. Conclusions: Assessing the reliability and validity of research utilization instruments proved to be a challenge as little detail, even on common multi-item measures, was reported. When reliability and validity assessments were reported, authors mainly referred to the index study for the instrument paying little attention to the accuracy or robustness of that assessment. Further, reliability and validity was seldom re-established for the new study or setting. A unitary approach to validity assessment has the benefit of being able to overcome some of these limitations.