Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

17-11-2018

A new scale for measuring quality of life in acquired brain injury

Auteurs: María Fernández, Laura E. Gómez, Víctor B. Arias, Virginia Aguayo, Antonio M. Amor, Nada Andelic, Miguel A. Verdugo

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2019

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

A common and frequent consequence of an acquired brain injury (ABI) is the diminished quality of life (QoL) of affected people. Because the majority of existing QoL instruments assess health-related domains, new instruments that allow for the evaluation of the QoL from an integral perspective that considers the context and personal factors of the individual are warranted. Hence, the purpose of this study is to develop and validate an instrument with these characteristics.

Methods

The CAVIDACE scale is a new 64-item specific instrument to assess QoL in people with ABI based on a third-person perspective. The validation sample comprises 421 adults with ABI, with ages ranging from 17 to 90 years (M = 53.12; SD = 14.87). The scale was completed by 97 professionals and 58 family members. Validity evidence based on the internal structure of the scale was provided through confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was analyzed in terms of internal consistency and inter-rater reliability.

Results

The results supported the internal structure of the scale, based on the theoretical and assessment framework in which QoL is composed of eight intercorrelated first-order domains (CFI = 0.890, RMSEA = 0.065, SRMR = 0.071). The internal consistency was good or excellent for the eight domains (ordinal alpha ranging from 0.77 to 0.93). The inter-rater reliability was very high (0.97).

Conclusions

The CAVIDACE scale is found to be a specific instrument with excellent psychometric properties that is helpful for the assessment of QoL in people with ABI, both in clinical practice and for research purposes.
vorige artikel Rasch validation of the Danish version of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) in patients with rotator cuff-related disorders
volgende artikel Validation of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-57 and -29 item short forms among kidney transplant recipients
Literatuur
1.
2.
Blicher, J. U., & Nielsen, J. F. (2008). Does long-term outcome after intensive inpatient rehabilitation of acquired brain injury depend on etiology? NeuroRehabilitation, 23(2), 175–183.PubMed
3.
Dijkers, M. P. (2004). Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: A review of research approaches and findings. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 85, 21–35.CrossRef
4.
Wolters, G., Stapert, S., Brands, I., & Van Heugten, C. (2010). Coping styles in relation to cognitive rehabilitation and quality of life after brain injury. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 20(4), 587–600.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Bullinger, M. (2002). Quality of life in patients with traumatic brain injury-basic issues, assessment and recommendations. Restorative Neurology and Neuroscience, 20(3), 111–124.PubMed
6.
Verdugo, M. A., Navas, P., Gómez, L. E., & Schalock, R. L. (2012). The concept of quality of life and its role in enhancing human rights in the field of intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56(11), 1036–1045.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Ware, J. E. Jr., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30(6), 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Findler, M., Cantor, J., Haddad, L., Gordon, W., & Ashman, T. (2001). The reliability and validity of the SF-36 health survey questionnaire for use with individuals with traumatic brain injury. Brain Injury, 15(8), 715–723.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Sopena, S., Dewar, B. K., Nannery, R., Teasdale, T. W., & Wilson, B. A. (2007). The European brain injury questionnaire (EBIQ) as a reliable outcome measure for use with people with brain injury. Brain Injury, 21(10), 1063–1068.PubMedCrossRef
10.
von Steinbüchel, N., Wilson, L., Gibbons, H., Hawthorne, G., Höfer, S., & Schmidt, S. & QOLIBRI TASK Force. (2010). Quality of life after brain injury (QOLIBRI): Scale development and metric properties. Journal of Neurotrauma, 27(7), 1167–1185.CrossRef
11.
von Steinbüchel, N., Wilson, L., Gibbons, H., Hawthorne, G., Höfer, S., & Schmidt, S. & QOLIBRI TASK Force. (2010). Quality of life after brain injury (QOLIBRI): Scale validity and correlates of quality of life. Journal of Neurotrauma, 27(7), 1157–1165.CrossRef
12.
Truelle, J. L., Koskinen, S., Hawthorne, G., Sarajuuri, J., Formisano, R., Von Wild, K., … Bullinger, M. (2010). Quality of life after traumatic brain injury: The clinical use of the QOLIBRI, a novel disease-specific instrument. Brain Injury, 24(11), 1272–1291.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Nichol, A. D., Higgins, A. M., Gabbe, B. J., Murray, L. J., Cooper, D. J., & Cameron, P. A. (2011). Measuring functional and quality of life outcomes following major head injury: Common scales and checklists. Injury, 42(3), 281–287.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., Arias, B., & Navas, P. (2010). Consideraciones conceptuales y metodológicas sobre el desarrollo de escalas multidimensionales de calidad de vida centradas en el contexto [Conceptual and methodological recommendations about the development of multidimensional quality of life scales focused on the contex]. Siglo Cero, 41(2), 59–80.
15.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2002). Handbook on quality of life for human service practitioners. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
16.
Gómez, L. E., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. A., & Navas, P. (2011). An outcomes-based assessment of quality of life in social services. Social Indicators Research, 106(1), 81–93.CrossRef
17.
Gómez, L. E., Peña, E., Arias, B., & Verdugo, M. A. (2016). Impact of individual and organizational variables on quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 125(2), 649–664.CrossRef
18.
Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., & Arias, B. (2010). Calidad de vida individual: avances en su conceptualización y retos emergentes en el ámbito de la discapacidad [Individual quality of life: advances in the conceptualization, and emerging challenges in the disability field]. Behavioral Psychology, 18(3), 453–472.
19.
Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., Arias, B., & Arias, V. (2011). A comparison of alternative models of individual quality of life for social service recipients. Social Indicators Research, 101(1), 109–126.CrossRef
20.
Jenaro, C., Verdugo, M. A., Caballo, C., Balboni, G., Lachapelle, Y., Otbrebski, W., & Schalock, R. L. (2005). Cross-cultural study of person-centred quality of life domains and indicators: A replication. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 49(10), 734–739.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Jenaro, C., Wang, M., Wehmeyer, M., Jiancheng, X., & Lachapelle, Y. (2005). Cross-cultural study of quality of life indicators. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110(4), 298–311.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Schalock, R. L., Baker, A., González, J., van Loon, J., Verdugo, M. A., & Wesley, G. (in press). The use of quality of life scores for monitoring and reporting, quality improvement, and research. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities. 15, 176–182.
23.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2013). The impact of the quality of life concept on the field of intellectual disability. In M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability (pp. 37–47). New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Gómez, L. E. (2011). Evidence-based practices in the field of intellectual and developmental disabilities: An international consensus approach. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34(3), 273–282.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., Gómez, L. E., & Reinders, H. S. (2016). Moving us toward a theory of individual quality of life. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 121(1), 1–12.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Verdugo, M. A., Henao, C. P., Córdoba, L., & Arias, V. B (2017). Dimensionality and internal structure of the Colombian version of the INICO-FEAPS quality of life scale. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(12), 1094–1103.CrossRef
27.
Author, et al. (2017). [details removed for peer review].
28.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2014). Quality of life as a change agent. In R. I. Brown & R. Faragher (Eds.), Challenges for quality of life: Application in education and other social contexts (pp. 60–72). New York: Nova Science.
29.
Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., Arias, B., Navas, P., & Schalock, R. L. (2013). The development and use of provider profiles at the organization and systems level. Evaluation and Program Planning, 40, 17–26.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Verdugo, M. A., Gómez, L. E., Arias, B., Navas, P., & Schalock, R. L. (2014). Measuring quality of life in people with intellectual and multiple disabilities: Validation of the San Martín scale. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 75–86.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012). The transformation of disability organizations. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 51(4), 273–286.CrossRef
32.
Schalock, R. L., & Verdugo, M. A. (2012). A leadership guide for today’s disabilities organizations: Overcoming challenges and making change happen. Baltimore: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.
33.
Schalock, R. L. (2018). Six Ideas That Are Changing the IDD Field Internationally. Siglo Cero, 49(1), 21–23.
34.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Knol, D. L., Stratford, P. W., Alonso, J., Patrick, D. L., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for evaluating the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties: A clarification of its content. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 10(1), 22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
35.
Luquiens, A., Whalley, D., Crawford, S. R., Laramée, P., Doward, L., Price, M., & Falissard, B. (2015). Development of the alcohol quality of life scale (AQoLS): A new patient-reported outcome measure to assess health-related quality of life in alcohol use disorder. Quality of Life Research, 24(6), 1471–1481.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Thoomes-De Graaf, M., Scholten-Peeters, G. G. M., Schellingerhout, J. M., Bourne, A. M., Buchbinder, R., Koehorst, M., & Verhagen, A. P. (2016). Evaluation of measurement properties of self-administered PROMs aimed at patients with non-specific shoulder pain and “activity limitations”: A systematic review. Quality of Life Research, 25(9), 2141–2160.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
37.
Terwee, C. B., Mokkink, L. B., Knol, D. L., Ostelo, R. W., Bouter, L. M., & de Vet, H. C. (2012). Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Quality of Life Research, 21(4), 651–657.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.CrossRef
39.
Elosua Oliden, P., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Coeficientes de fiabilidad para escalas de respuesta categórica ordenada [Reliability coefficients for ordered categorical response scales]. Psicothema, 20(4), 896–901.PubMed
40.
Zumbo, B. D., Gadermann, A. M., & Zeisser, C. (2007). Ordinal versions of coefficients alpha and theta for Likert rating scales. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 6(1), 4.CrossRef
41.
Koo, T. K., & Li, M. Y. (2016). A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. Journal of Chiropractic Medicine, 15(2), 155–163.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397–438.CrossRef
43.
44.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods and Research, 21, 230–258.CrossRef
45.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
46.
Wang, M., Schalock, R. L., Verdugo, M. A., & Jenaro, C. (2010). Examining the factor structure and hierarchical nature of the quality of life construct. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 115(3), 218–233.PubMedCrossRef
47.
48.
Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling, 16(4), 561–582.CrossRef
49.
Morin, A. J., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23(1), 116–139.CrossRef
50.
Fornell, C. G., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50.CrossRef
51.
Gómez, L. E., Verdugo, M. A., & Arias, B. (2015). Validity and reliability of the INICO-FEAPS Scale: An assessment of quality of life for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 36, 600–610.CrossRef
52.
Gómez, L. E., Alcedo, M. A., Arias, B., Fontanil, Y., Arias, V. B., Monsalve, A., & Verdugo, M. A. (2016). A new scale for the measurement of quality of life in children with intellectual disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 53, 399–410.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
54.
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110.PubMedCrossRef
55.
McNeish, D., An, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2018). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 43–52.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Lai, K., & Green, S. B. (2016). The problem with having two watches: Assessment of fit when RMSEA and CFI disagree. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51(2–3), 220–239.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Verdugo, M. A. (2018). Conceptos clave que explican los cambios en las discapacidades intelectuales y del desarrollo en España [Key concepts and principles that explain changes in the provision of supports for intellectual and developmental disabilities in Spain]. Siglo Cero, 49(1), 35–52.
58.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., & de Vet, H. C. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
A new scale for measuring quality of life in acquired brain injury
Auteurs
María Fernández
Laura E. Gómez
Víctor B. Arias
Virginia Aguayo
Antonio M. Amor
Nada Andelic
Miguel A. Verdugo
Publicatiedatum
17-11-2018
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2019
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2047-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2019

Agreement of child and parent-proxy reported health-related quality of life in children with mental disorder

Rasch validation of the Danish version of the shoulder pain and disability index (SPADI) in patients with rotator cuff-related disorders

  • Brief Communication

Determining clinically important differences in health-related quality of life in older patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy or surgery

To bin or not to bin? A comparison of symptom frequency response formats in the assessment of health-related quality of life

Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide

Does the ICECAP-O cover the physical, mental and social functioning of older people in the UK?

  • Open Access