nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.10.2013

Psychometric and factor analytic evaluation of the 15D health-related quality of life instrument: the case of Greece

verfasst von: Fotios Anagnostopoulos, John Yfantopoulos, Irini Moustaki, Dimitris Niakas

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 8/2013

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the dimensionality, construct validity in the form of factorial, convergent, discriminant, and known-groups validity, as well as scale reliability of the fifteen dimensional (15D) instrument.

Methods

15D data were collected from a large Greek general population sample (N = 3,268) which was randomly split into two halves. Data from the first sample were used to examine the distributional properties of the 15 items, as well as the factor structure adopting an exploratory approach. Data from the second sample were used to perform a confirmatory factor analysis of the 15 items, examine the goodness of fit of several measurement models, and evaluate reliability and known-groups validity of the resulting subscales, along with convergent and discriminant validity of the constructs.

Results

Exploratory factor analysis, using a distribution-free method, revealed a three-factor solution of the 15D (functional ability, physiological needs satisfaction, emotional well-being). Confirmatory factor analysis provided support for the three-factor solution but suggested that certain modifications should be made to this solution, involving freeing certain elements of the matrix of factor loadings and of the covariance matrix of measurement errors in the observed variables. Evidence of convergent validity was provided for all three factors, but discriminant validity was supported only for the emotional well-being construct. Scale reliability and known-groups validity of the resulting three subscales were satisfactory.

Conclusions

Our results confirm the multidimensional structure of the 15D and the existence of three latent factors that cover important aspects of the health-related quality of life domain (physical and emotional functioning). The implications of our results for the validity of the 15D and suggestions for future research are outlined.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Measuring healthy days: Population assessment of health-related quality of life. Atlanta: CDC.

Deshpande, A. D., Sefko, J. A., Jeffe, D. B., & Schootman, M. (2011). The association between chronic disease burden and quality of life among breast cancer survivors in Missouri. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 129(3), 877–886.PubMedCrossRef

Ziaian, T., Sawyer, M. G., Reynolds, K. E., et al. (2006). Treatment burden and health-related quality of life of children with diabetes, cystic fibrosis and asthma. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health, 42(10), 596–600.PubMedCrossRef

Beckie, T. M., & Beckstead, J. W. (2011). The effects of a cardiac rehabilitation program tailored for women on their perceptions of health: A randomized clinical trial. Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention, 31, 25–34.PubMedCrossRef

Rogers, L. Q., Courneya, K. S., Paragi- Gururaja, R., Markwell, S. J., & Imeokparia, R. (2008). Lifestyle behaviors and perceived health among men with and without a diagnosis of prostate cancer: A population-based, cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health, 8, 23.PubMedCrossRef

Bowden, A., & Fox-Rushby, J. A. (2003). A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and South America. Social Science and Medicine, 57(7), 1289–1306.PubMedCrossRef

Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Tountas, Y. (2009). Comparison between exploratory factor-analytic and SEM-based approaches to constructing SF-36 summary scores. Quality of Life Research, 18, 53–63.PubMedCrossRef

Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRef

Yfantopoulos, J. (2001). The Greek version of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 18, 180–191.

10.

Yfantopoulos, J., & Sintonen, H. (2002). Comparison of the properties of the EQ-5D with the 15D in Finland and Greece. In A. L. Norinder, K. M. Pedersen, & P. Roos (Eds.), Proceedings of the 18th plenary meeting of the EuroQol group, Copenhagen 2001. Lund: The Swedish Institute of Health Economics.

11.

Yfantopoulos, J. (2001). Validation and measurement of quality of life in Greece using EQ-15D. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 18, 279–287.

12.

Aletras, V. H., Kontodimopoulos, N., Niakas, D. A., Vagia, M. G., Pelteki, H. J., Karatzoglou, G. I., et al. (2009). Valuation and preliminary validation of the Greek 15D in a sample of patients with coronary artery disease. Value in Health, 12(4), 574–579.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Chatterji, S., Ustün, B. L., Sadana, R., Salomon, J. A., Mathers, C. D., & Murray, C. J. L. (2002). The conceptual basis for measuring and reporting on health. Geneva: WHO.

14.

Sintonen, H. (1994). The 15-D measure of health related quality of life: Reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system [working paper # 41]. West Heidelberg: Centre for Health Program Evaluation.

15.

Sintonen, H. (1995). The 15-D measure of health related quality of life: II Feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system [working paper # 42]. West Heidelberg: Centre for Health Program Evaluation.

16.

Haapamäki, J., Roine, R. P., Sintonen, H., Turunen, U., Färkkilä, M. A., & Arkkila, P. E. T. (2010). Health-related quality of life in inflammatory bowel disease measured with the generic 15D instrument. Quality of Life Research, 19(6), 919–928.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Miettola, J., Niskanen, L. K., Viinamäki, H., Sintonen, H., & Kumpusalo, E. (2008). Metabolic syndrome is associated with impaired health-related quality of life: Lapinlahti 2005 study. Quality of Life Research, 17(8), 1055–1062.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Kauppinen, R., Rissanen, P., & Sintonen, H. (2000). Agreement between a generic and disease-specific quality-of-life instrument: The 15D and the SGRQ in asthmatic patients. Quality of Life Research, 9(9), 997–1003.CrossRef

19.

Haapaniemi, T., Sotaniemi, A., Sintonen, H., & Taimela, E. (2004). The generic 15D instrument is valid and feasible for measuring health related quality of life in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery and Psychiatry, 75(7), 976–983.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Moock, J., & Kohlmann, T. (2008). Comparing preference-based quality-of-life measures: Results from rehabilitation patients with musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, or psychosomatic disorders. Quality of Life Research, 17, 485–495.PubMedCrossRef

21.

Stavem, K., Frøland, S. S., & Hellum, K. B. (2005). Comparison of preference-based utilities of the 15D, EQ-5D and SF-6D in patients with HIV/AIDS. Quality of Life Research, 14(4), 971–980.PubMedCrossRef

22.

Wittrup-Jensen, K. U., & Lauridsen, J. (2008). An assessment of two generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instruments in patients suffering from low back pain. Odense: University of Southern Denmark.

23.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., & Day, N. A. (2001). A comparison of the assessment of quality of life (AQoL) with four other generic utility instruments. Annals of Medicine, 33, 358–370.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Sintonen, H. (2001). The 15D instrument of health-related quality of life: Properties and applications. Annals of Medicine, 33, 328–336.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Jöreskog, K., Sörbom, D., du Toit, S., & du Toit, M. (2000). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

26.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., Day, N., & McNeil, H. (2000). Life and death: Theoretical and practical issues in using utility instruments [working paper 102]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Program Evaluation.

27.

Hawthorne, G. (2006). Measuring incontinence in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

28.

Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 287–297.PubMedCrossRef

29.

Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299.CrossRef

30.

Glorfeld, L. W. (1995). An improvement on Horn’s parallel analysis methodology for selecting the correct number of factors to retain. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55, 377–393.CrossRef

31.

Hayton, J. C., Allen, D. G., & Scarpello, V. (2004). Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7, 191–205.CrossRef

32.

Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.

33.

Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(3), 461–483.CrossRef

34.

Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6–23.PubMedCrossRef

35.

Zahran, H. S., Kobau, R., Moriarty, D. G., et al. (2005). Health-related quality of life surveillance-United States, 1993–2002. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 54, ss-4.

36.

DeSalvo, K. B., Bloser, N., Reynolds, K., He, J., & Muntner, P. (2006). Mortality prediction with a single general self-rated health question: A meta-analysis. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21(3), 267–275.PubMedCrossRef

37.

Sintonen, H. (2001). Comparing properties of the 15D and the EQ-5D in measuring health-related quality of life. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 18, 156–160.

38.

Jöreskog, K. G. (2003). Factor analysis by MINRES. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International. http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/minres.pdf. Assessed June 1, 2011.

39.

Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

40.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2008). LISREL 8.80 for windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

41.

Muthen, B. (1993). Goodness of fit with categorical and other nonnormal variables. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

42.

Bartholomew, D., Knott, M., & Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor analysis: A unified approach (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley.CrossRef

43.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

44.

Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299–331.CrossRef

45.

Raykov, T. (2002). Analytic estimation of standard error and confidence interval for scale reliability. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 89–103.CrossRef

46.

McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.PubMedCrossRef

47.

D’Agostino, R., & Pearson, E. (1973). Tests for departures from normality: Empirical results for the distribution of √b₁ and b₂. Biometrika, 60, 613–622.

48.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.

49.

Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

50.

Deacon, B. J., Abramowitz, J. S., Woods, C. M., & Tolin, D. F. (2003). The anxiety sensitivity index-revised: Psychometric properties and factor structure in two nonclinical samples. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41(12), 1427–1449.PubMedCrossRef

51.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRef

52.

Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319.CrossRef

53.

Saarni, S. I., Härkänen, T., Sintonen, H., Suvisaari, J., Koskinen, S., Aromaa, A., et al. (2006). The impact of 29 chronic conditions on health-related quality of life: A general population survey in Finland using 15D and EQ-5D. Quality of Life Research, 15(8), 1403–1414.PubMedCrossRef

54.

Akinci, F., Yildirim, A., Ogutman, B., Ates, M., Gozu, H., Deyneli, O., et al. (2005). Translation, cultural adaptation, initial reliability and validation of Turkish 15D’s version: A generic health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28, 53–66.PubMedCrossRef

55.

Hawthorne, G., Richardson, J., Osborne, R., & McNeil, H. (1997). The assessment of quality of life (AQoL) instrument: Construction, initial validation, and utility scaling [working paper 76]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Program Evaluation.

56.

Hall, T., Krahn, G. L., Horner-Johnson, W., & Lamb, G. (2011). Examining functional content in widely used health-related quality of life scales. Rehabilitation Psychology, 56(2), 94–99.PubMedCrossRef

57.

Richardson, J. (2010). Psychometric validity and multi-attribute utility (MAU) instruments [research paper 57]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

58.

Richardson, J., McKie, J., & Bariola, E. (2011). Review and critique of health-related multi-attribute utility instruments [research paper 64]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

59.

Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388.CrossRef

60.

Howell, R. D., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. B. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205–218.PubMedCrossRef

61.

Richardson, J., & Iezzi, A. (2011). Psychometric validity and the AQoL-8D multi-attribute utility instrument [research paper 71]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

62.

Peacock, S., Richardson, J., Day, N. A., Hawthorne, G., Iezzi, A., & Elsworth, G. (2010). Construction of the descriptive system for the Assessment of Quality of Life AQoL-6D utility instrument [research paper 49]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.

Titel: Psychometric and factor analytic evaluation of the 15D health-related quality of life instrument: the case of Greece
verfasst von: Fotios Anagnostopoulos
John Yfantopoulos
Irini Moustaki
Dimitris Niakas
Publikationsdatum: 01.10.2013
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 8/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0348-2

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 8/2013

Validation of a new quality of life scale related to multiple sclerosis and relapses

Evaluation of the Social Participation Questionnaire in adult patients with depressive symptoms using Rasch analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis of the PedsQL among youth in a residential treatment setting

The impact of HIV status, HIV disease progression, and post-traumatic stress symptoms on the health-related quality of life of Rwandan women genocide survivors

Analysis of mental disorders in tinnitus patients performed with Composite International Diagnostic Interview

Understanding the impact of racial self-identification on perceptions of health-related quality of life: a multi-group analysis