Examining Functional Content in Widely Used Health-Related Quality of Life Scales
Purpose: Assess extent to which generic Quality of Life (QOL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) scales include function in assessment of health, and identify health assessment items that are free of functional content. Methods: An expert panel on measurement of health and disability reached...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Rehabilitation psychology 2011-05, Vol.56 (2), p.94-99 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 99 |
---|---|
container_issue | 2 |
container_start_page | 94 |
container_title | Rehabilitation psychology |
container_volume | 56 |
creator | Hall, Trevor Krahn, Gloria L Horner-Johnson, Willi Lamb, Gordon |
description | Purpose:
Assess extent to which generic Quality of Life (QOL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) scales include function in assessment of health, and identify health assessment items that are free of functional content.
Methods:
An expert panel on measurement of health and disability reached consensus on definitions of health, disability, and function. They assessed all items of all generic (non-condition-specific) scales in the 2006 ProQolid database for being important to measuring health as distinct from function. Ratings were summarized as content validity ratios. Retained items were written into standard format and reviewed again by the expert panel and a validity panel with expertise in specific disabilities.
Results:
Of 85 scales, 21 were retained as containing items important for assessing health. Scales ranged from 100% (BRFSS HRQOL, WHO-5) to only 4% of items rated as important. In further review of "important" items, functional content was identified in many of the items, particularly with regard to mental functioning.
Conclusions:
Popular generic scales of QOL and HRQOL vary greatly in the degree to which they include content on function. A pool of items can be identified that are relatively free of function. Distinguishing measurement of function and health is particularly important for people with long-standing functional limitations and for assessing the relationship of health with function. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1037/a0023054 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_867478944</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>867478944</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-723334f5be8e3a156a4e668b59e0c6db1d738c4b26bc8e513cf8ea19e53e1e623</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kV1LHDEYRoO06NYW_AUltBctwmi-J3NZFq3CgmiVXoZM5p02kp0Zkwx0_32zuFZailchcDjwPgehI0pOKOH1qSWEcSLFHlrQhjcVlUK8QgtCGlJJKckBepPSPSFUcM320QGjshY1qxfo-uyXXfvBDz_w-Ty47MfBBrwchwxDxn7A330HYYPvEnT4AmzIP6sbCDaX7_Vsg88bPPZ45XvA35wNkN6i170NCd7t3kN0d352u7yoVldfL5dfVpUVROaqZpxz0csWNHBLpbIClNKtbIA41bW0q7l2omWqdRok5a7XYGkDkgMFxfgh-vToneL4MEPKZu2TgxDsAOOcjFblRN0IUcjPL5J0O15DdK0L-uEf9H6cY5lk52O1os8-F8eUIvRmin5t46aYzLaHeepR0Pc739yuofsDPgUowPEjYCdrprRxNmbvyoxujrEkMBEmI5VhptnaPv4f_ov6DV8lnpc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>867472761</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Examining Functional Content in Widely Used Health-Related Quality of Life Scales</title><source>APA PsycARTICLES</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Hall, Trevor ; Krahn, Gloria L ; Horner-Johnson, Willi ; Lamb, Gordon</creator><contributor>Elliott, Timothy R</contributor><creatorcontrib>Hall, Trevor ; Krahn, Gloria L ; Horner-Johnson, Willi ; Lamb, Gordon ; Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement ; The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement ; Elliott, Timothy R</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose:
Assess extent to which generic Quality of Life (QOL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) scales include function in assessment of health, and identify health assessment items that are free of functional content.
Methods:
An expert panel on measurement of health and disability reached consensus on definitions of health, disability, and function. They assessed all items of all generic (non-condition-specific) scales in the 2006 ProQolid database for being important to measuring health as distinct from function. Ratings were summarized as content validity ratios. Retained items were written into standard format and reviewed again by the expert panel and a validity panel with expertise in specific disabilities.
Results:
Of 85 scales, 21 were retained as containing items important for assessing health. Scales ranged from 100% (BRFSS HRQOL, WHO-5) to only 4% of items rated as important. In further review of "important" items, functional content was identified in many of the items, particularly with regard to mental functioning.
Conclusions:
Popular generic scales of QOL and HRQOL vary greatly in the degree to which they include content on function. A pool of items can be identified that are relatively free of function. Distinguishing measurement of function and health is particularly important for people with long-standing functional limitations and for assessing the relationship of health with function.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0090-5550</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1939-1544</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1037/a0023054</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21574727</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Psychological Association</publisher><subject>Activities of Daily Living - classification ; Activities of Daily Living - psychology ; Assessment ; Consensus ; Disabilities ; Disability ; Disability Evaluation ; Health ; Health Related Quality of Life ; Health status ; Health Status Indicators ; Humans ; Measurement ; Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data ; Quality of Life ; Quality of Life - psychology ; Reproducibility of Results ; Response Bias ; Sick Role ; Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><ispartof>Rehabilitation psychology, 2011-05, Vol.56 (2), p.94-99</ispartof><rights>2011 American Psychological Association</rights><rights>2011, American Psychological Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-723334f5be8e3a156a4e668b59e0c6db1d738c4b26bc8e513cf8ea19e53e1e623</citedby><orcidid>0000-0003-3568-1400</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,30977</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21574727$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><contributor>Elliott, Timothy R</contributor><creatorcontrib>Hall, Trevor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krahn, Gloria L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horner-Johnson, Willi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Gordon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement</creatorcontrib><title>Examining Functional Content in Widely Used Health-Related Quality of Life Scales</title><title>Rehabilitation psychology</title><addtitle>Rehabil Psychol</addtitle><description>Purpose:
Assess extent to which generic Quality of Life (QOL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) scales include function in assessment of health, and identify health assessment items that are free of functional content.
Methods:
An expert panel on measurement of health and disability reached consensus on definitions of health, disability, and function. They assessed all items of all generic (non-condition-specific) scales in the 2006 ProQolid database for being important to measuring health as distinct from function. Ratings were summarized as content validity ratios. Retained items were written into standard format and reviewed again by the expert panel and a validity panel with expertise in specific disabilities.
Results:
Of 85 scales, 21 were retained as containing items important for assessing health. Scales ranged from 100% (BRFSS HRQOL, WHO-5) to only 4% of items rated as important. In further review of "important" items, functional content was identified in many of the items, particularly with regard to mental functioning.
Conclusions:
Popular generic scales of QOL and HRQOL vary greatly in the degree to which they include content on function. A pool of items can be identified that are relatively free of function. Distinguishing measurement of function and health is particularly important for people with long-standing functional limitations and for assessing the relationship of health with function.</description><subject>Activities of Daily Living - classification</subject><subject>Activities of Daily Living - psychology</subject><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Consensus</subject><subject>Disabilities</subject><subject>Disability</subject><subject>Disability Evaluation</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health Related Quality of Life</subject><subject>Health status</subject><subject>Health Status Indicators</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Measurement</subject><subject>Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data</subject><subject>Quality of Life</subject><subject>Quality of Life - psychology</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Response Bias</subject><subject>Sick Role</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><issn>0090-5550</issn><issn>1939-1544</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kV1LHDEYRoO06NYW_AUltBctwmi-J3NZFq3CgmiVXoZM5p02kp0Zkwx0_32zuFZailchcDjwPgehI0pOKOH1qSWEcSLFHlrQhjcVlUK8QgtCGlJJKckBepPSPSFUcM320QGjshY1qxfo-uyXXfvBDz_w-Ty47MfBBrwchwxDxn7A330HYYPvEnT4AmzIP6sbCDaX7_Vsg88bPPZ45XvA35wNkN6i170NCd7t3kN0d352u7yoVldfL5dfVpUVROaqZpxz0csWNHBLpbIClNKtbIA41bW0q7l2omWqdRok5a7XYGkDkgMFxfgh-vToneL4MEPKZu2TgxDsAOOcjFblRN0IUcjPL5J0O15DdK0L-uEf9H6cY5lk52O1os8-F8eUIvRmin5t46aYzLaHeepR0Pc739yuofsDPgUowPEjYCdrprRxNmbvyoxujrEkMBEmI5VhptnaPv4f_ov6DV8lnpc</recordid><startdate>201105</startdate><enddate>201105</enddate><creator>Hall, Trevor</creator><creator>Krahn, Gloria L</creator><creator>Horner-Johnson, Willi</creator><creator>Lamb, Gordon</creator><general>American Psychological Association</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7RZ</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3568-1400</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201105</creationdate><title>Examining Functional Content in Widely Used Health-Related Quality of Life Scales</title><author>Hall, Trevor ; Krahn, Gloria L ; Horner-Johnson, Willi ; Lamb, Gordon</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a405t-723334f5be8e3a156a4e668b59e0c6db1d738c4b26bc8e513cf8ea19e53e1e623</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Activities of Daily Living - classification</topic><topic>Activities of Daily Living - psychology</topic><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Consensus</topic><topic>Disabilities</topic><topic>Disability</topic><topic>Disability Evaluation</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health Related Quality of Life</topic><topic>Health status</topic><topic>Health Status Indicators</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Measurement</topic><topic>Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data</topic><topic>Quality of Life</topic><topic>Quality of Life - psychology</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Response Bias</topic><topic>Sick Role</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hall, Trevor</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Krahn, Gloria L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Horner-Johnson, Willi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lamb, Gordon</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>APA PsycArticles®</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Rehabilitation psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hall, Trevor</au><au>Krahn, Gloria L</au><au>Horner-Johnson, Willi</au><au>Lamb, Gordon</au><au>Elliott, Timothy R</au><aucorp>Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement</aucorp><aucorp>The Rehabilitation Research and Training Center Expert Panel on Health Measurement</aucorp><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Examining Functional Content in Widely Used Health-Related Quality of Life Scales</atitle><jtitle>Rehabilitation psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Rehabil Psychol</addtitle><date>2011-05</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>56</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>94</spage><epage>99</epage><pages>94-99</pages><issn>0090-5550</issn><eissn>1939-1544</eissn><abstract>Purpose:
Assess extent to which generic Quality of Life (QOL) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) scales include function in assessment of health, and identify health assessment items that are free of functional content.
Methods:
An expert panel on measurement of health and disability reached consensus on definitions of health, disability, and function. They assessed all items of all generic (non-condition-specific) scales in the 2006 ProQolid database for being important to measuring health as distinct from function. Ratings were summarized as content validity ratios. Retained items were written into standard format and reviewed again by the expert panel and a validity panel with expertise in specific disabilities.
Results:
Of 85 scales, 21 were retained as containing items important for assessing health. Scales ranged from 100% (BRFSS HRQOL, WHO-5) to only 4% of items rated as important. In further review of "important" items, functional content was identified in many of the items, particularly with regard to mental functioning.
Conclusions:
Popular generic scales of QOL and HRQOL vary greatly in the degree to which they include content on function. A pool of items can be identified that are relatively free of function. Distinguishing measurement of function and health is particularly important for people with long-standing functional limitations and for assessing the relationship of health with function.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Psychological Association</pub><pmid>21574727</pmid><doi>10.1037/a0023054</doi><tpages>6</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3568-1400</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0090-5550 |
ispartof | Rehabilitation psychology, 2011-05, Vol.56 (2), p.94-99 |
issn | 0090-5550 1939-1544 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_867478944 |
source | APA PsycARTICLES; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE |
subjects | Activities of Daily Living - classification Activities of Daily Living - psychology Assessment Consensus Disabilities Disability Disability Evaluation Health Health Related Quality of Life Health status Health Status Indicators Humans Measurement Psychometrics - statistics & numerical data Quality of Life Quality of Life - psychology Reproducibility of Results Response Bias Sick Role Surveys and Questionnaires |
title | Examining Functional Content in Widely Used Health-Related Quality of Life Scales |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-02T07%3A59%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Examining%20Functional%20Content%20in%20Widely%20Used%20Health-Related%20Quality%20of%20Life%20Scales&rft.jtitle=Rehabilitation%20psychology&rft.au=Hall,%20Trevor&rft.aucorp=Rehabilitation%20Research%20and%20Training%20Center%20Expert%20Panel%20on%20Health%20Measurement&rft.date=2011-05&rft.volume=56&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=94&rft.epage=99&rft.pages=94-99&rft.issn=0090-5550&rft.eissn=1939-1544&rft_id=info:doi/10.1037/a0023054&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E867478944%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=867472761&rft_id=info:pmid/21574727&rfr_iscdi=true |