韩国版健康相关生活质量量表EQ-5D与WHOQOL-BREF的并发效度及项目水平分析

Bong-sam Choi
{"title":"韩国版健康相关生活质量量表EQ-5D与WHOQOL-BREF的并发效度及项目水平分析","authors":"Bong-sam Choi","doi":"10.12674/ptk.2020.27.4.233","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cross-culturally adapted questionnaires may not be comparable to their original version. Objects: To examine concurrent validity of two health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments for the Korean versions of EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument. Methods: A total of 139 cancer survivors from two rehabilitation institutes was recruited. All participants were registered for palliative rehabilitation care. Both instruments were concurrently administered by health care providers following the second bout of the rehabilitation cares. Rasch partial credit model and Spearman’s correlation analysis were used to investigate: 1) dimensionality, 2) hierarchical item difficulty, and 3) concurrent validity using correlations between two instruments. Results: For the WHOQOL-BREF, all items except negative feeling, pain, dependence of medical aid, were found to be acceptable, while all items of EQ-5D were acceptable. There was an evidence of negative correlations between EQ-5D and 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF. Two correlations were strong (EQ-5D vs. physical health domain, ρ = –0.610, 95% CI = –0.716 to –0.475) and moderate (EQ-5D vs. psychosocial domain, ρ = –0.402, 95% CI = –0.546 to –0.236). Other two correlations were weak (EQ-5D vs. social relationship and environmental domains, ρ = –0.242, 95% CI = –0.401 to –0.075 and ρ = –0.364, 95% CI = –0.514 to –0.207, respectively). Item difficulty calibrations of the two measurements were ranged from –0.84 to 0.86 for the EQ-5D and –1.07 to 1.06 for the WHOQOL-BREF. Conclusion: The study provides some supports for the concurrent validity of the two Korean versions of HRQOL instrument, with evidences of weak to strong correlations between the EQ- 5D and four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF applied to various cancer survivors. Additionally, the cancer survivors appeared to have more of a tendency to view the EQ-5D items as being slightly more challenging than the WHOQOL-BREF items.","PeriodicalId":170352,"journal":{"name":"Physical Therapy Korea","volume":"145 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Exploring Concurrent Validity and Item Level Analysis for Two Korean Versions of Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument: EQ-5D vs. WHOQOL-BREF\",\"authors\":\"Bong-sam Choi\",\"doi\":\"10.12674/ptk.2020.27.4.233\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Cross-culturally adapted questionnaires may not be comparable to their original version. Objects: To examine concurrent validity of two health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments for the Korean versions of EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument. Methods: A total of 139 cancer survivors from two rehabilitation institutes was recruited. All participants were registered for palliative rehabilitation care. Both instruments were concurrently administered by health care providers following the second bout of the rehabilitation cares. Rasch partial credit model and Spearman’s correlation analysis were used to investigate: 1) dimensionality, 2) hierarchical item difficulty, and 3) concurrent validity using correlations between two instruments. Results: For the WHOQOL-BREF, all items except negative feeling, pain, dependence of medical aid, were found to be acceptable, while all items of EQ-5D were acceptable. There was an evidence of negative correlations between EQ-5D and 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF. Two correlations were strong (EQ-5D vs. physical health domain, ρ = –0.610, 95% CI = –0.716 to –0.475) and moderate (EQ-5D vs. psychosocial domain, ρ = –0.402, 95% CI = –0.546 to –0.236). Other two correlations were weak (EQ-5D vs. social relationship and environmental domains, ρ = –0.242, 95% CI = –0.401 to –0.075 and ρ = –0.364, 95% CI = –0.514 to –0.207, respectively). Item difficulty calibrations of the two measurements were ranged from –0.84 to 0.86 for the EQ-5D and –1.07 to 1.06 for the WHOQOL-BREF. Conclusion: The study provides some supports for the concurrent validity of the two Korean versions of HRQOL instrument, with evidences of weak to strong correlations between the EQ- 5D and four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF applied to various cancer survivors. Additionally, the cancer survivors appeared to have more of a tendency to view the EQ-5D items as being slightly more challenging than the WHOQOL-BREF items.\",\"PeriodicalId\":170352,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Physical Therapy Korea\",\"volume\":\"145 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Physical Therapy Korea\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.4.233\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Physical Therapy Korea","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12674/ptk.2020.27.4.233","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:跨文化适应的问卷可能无法与其原始版本进行比较。目的:探讨韩国版EuroQOL-5维度量表(EQ-5D)和世界卫生组织生命质量量表(WHOQOL-BREF)两种健康相关生活质量量表(HRQOL)的并发效度。方法:从两所康复机构招募139名癌症幸存者。所有参与者均登记接受姑息康复治疗。在第二轮康复护理后,卫生保健提供者同时使用这两种仪器。采用Rasch部分信用模型和Spearman相关分析:1)维度,2)层次项目难度,3)两种工具之间的相关性研究并发效度。结果:WHOQOL-BREF除负面感受、疼痛、对医疗救助的依赖外,其余项目均可接受,EQ-5D项目均可接受。EQ-5D与WHOQOL-BREF的4个结构域呈负相关。两种相关性为强(EQ-5D vs.身体健康领域,ρ = -0.610, 95% CI = -0.716至-0.475)和中度(EQ-5D vs.心理社会领域,ρ = -0.402, 95% CI = -0.546至-0.236)。其他两个相关性较弱(EQ-5D与社会关系和环境领域,ρ = -0.242, 95% CI = -0.401至-0.075,ρ = -0.364, 95% CI = -0.514至-0.207)。EQ-5D和WHOQOL-BREF的项目难度校准范围分别为-0.84 ~ 0.86和-1.07 ~ 1.06。结论:在不同癌症幸存者中,EQ- 5D与WHOQOL-BREF的4个结构域存在弱到强的相关性,为两种韩国版HRQOL仪器的并发效度提供了一定的支持。此外,癌症幸存者似乎更倾向于认为EQ-5D项目比WHOQOL-BREF项目更具挑战性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Exploring Concurrent Validity and Item Level Analysis for Two Korean Versions of Health-Related Quality of Life Instrument: EQ-5D vs. WHOQOL-BREF
Background: Cross-culturally adapted questionnaires may not be comparable to their original version. Objects: To examine concurrent validity of two health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments for the Korean versions of EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument. Methods: A total of 139 cancer survivors from two rehabilitation institutes was recruited. All participants were registered for palliative rehabilitation care. Both instruments were concurrently administered by health care providers following the second bout of the rehabilitation cares. Rasch partial credit model and Spearman’s correlation analysis were used to investigate: 1) dimensionality, 2) hierarchical item difficulty, and 3) concurrent validity using correlations between two instruments. Results: For the WHOQOL-BREF, all items except negative feeling, pain, dependence of medical aid, were found to be acceptable, while all items of EQ-5D were acceptable. There was an evidence of negative correlations between EQ-5D and 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF. Two correlations were strong (EQ-5D vs. physical health domain, ρ = –0.610, 95% CI = –0.716 to –0.475) and moderate (EQ-5D vs. psychosocial domain, ρ = –0.402, 95% CI = –0.546 to –0.236). Other two correlations were weak (EQ-5D vs. social relationship and environmental domains, ρ = –0.242, 95% CI = –0.401 to –0.075 and ρ = –0.364, 95% CI = –0.514 to –0.207, respectively). Item difficulty calibrations of the two measurements were ranged from –0.84 to 0.86 for the EQ-5D and –1.07 to 1.06 for the WHOQOL-BREF. Conclusion: The study provides some supports for the concurrent validity of the two Korean versions of HRQOL instrument, with evidences of weak to strong correlations between the EQ- 5D and four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF applied to various cancer survivors. Additionally, the cancer survivors appeared to have more of a tendency to view the EQ-5D items as being slightly more challenging than the WHOQOL-BREF items.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信