Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 11/2015

03-06-2015

Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases

Auteur: Andrew M. Garratt

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 11/2015

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

To evaluate the stages of completion and approaches to scoring the PGI for reliability, validity and responsiveness.

Methods

Participants of inpatient rehabilitation or self-management programmes completed the closed PGI with the same areas at 1 year as baseline. Test–retest reliability, validity and responsiveness were assessed for area scores (stage one), points (stage two) and methods of scoring the PGI.

Results

One hundred and forty-five patients participated, and 118 (81 %) completed the PGI correctly. Test–retest intraclass correlations were over 0.90 for area scores (stage two) and were 0.87 and 0.86 for final PGI scores with and without the sixth “rest of life” box. Individual area scores had the highest correlations with those for instruments assessing similar constructs; those for the area “rest of life” were lower. Compared to scores based on the sum of the stage two areas, PGI scores had higher correlations of a moderate level with those for patient-reported instruments widely used within rheumatology. Correlations were of a similar level with and without the sixth “rest of life” area, and those based on baseline points at follow-up were highest. The PGI had higher SRMs than the other instruments at 1 year, the highest being for PGI scores based on baseline points.

Conclusions

The fully closed version of the PGI, which uses baseline areas and baseline stage three points at follow-up, is most appropriate for assessing outcomes within healthcare evaluation. The sixth “rest of life” area has poorer measurement properties, and its removal does not adversely affect the measurement properties of the PGI.
vorige artikel Construction of a Quality of Life Questionnaire for slowly progressive neuromuscular disease
volgende artikel A new perspective on proxy report: Investigating implicit processes of understanding through patient–proxy congruence
Literatuur
1.
Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., Leng, M., Russell, I. T., & MacDonald, L. M. (1994). A new approach to the measurement of quality of life. The Patient-Generated Index. Medical Care, 32(11), 1109–1126.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Martin, F., Camfield, L., Rodham, K., Kliempt, P., & Ruta, D. (2007). Twelve years’ experience with the Patient Generated Index (PGI) of quality of life: A graded structured review. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 705–715.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Klokkerud, M., Grotle, M., Løchting, I., Kjeken, I., Hagen, K. B., & Garratt, A. M. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Norwegian version of the Patient Generated Index in patients with rheumatic diseases participating in rehabilitation or self-management programs. Rheumatology (Oxford), 52(5), 924–932.CrossRef
4.
Løchting, I., Grotle, M., Storheim, K., Werner, E. L., & Garratt, A. M. (2014). Individualised quality of life in patients with low back pain: Reliability and validity of the Patient Generated Index (PGI). Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine, 46(8), 781–787.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Ruta, D. A., Garratt, A. M., & Russell, I. T. (1999). Patient centred assessment of quality of life for patients with four common conditions. Quality in Health Care, 8(1), 22–29.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
6.
Haywood, K. L., Garratt, A. M., Dziedzic, K., & Dawes, P. T. (2003). Patient centered assessment of ankylosing spondylitis-specific health related quality of life: Evaluation of the Patient Generated Index. Journal of Rheumatology, 30(4), 764–773.PubMed
7.
Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
8.
Garratt, A. M., Løchting, I., Smedslund, G., & Hagen, K. B. (2014). Measurement properties of instruments for assessing self-efficacy in patients with rheumatic diseases: A systematic review. Rheumatology (Oxford), 53(7), 1161–1171.CrossRef
9.
Uhlig, T., Haavardsholm, E. A., & Kvien, T. K. (2006). Comparison of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and modified HAQ (MHAQ) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatology, 45(4), 454–458.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Barlow, J. H., Williams, B., & Wright, C. C. (1997). The reliability and validity of the arthritis self-efficacy scale in a UK context. Psychology Health and Medicine, 2(1), 3–17.CrossRef
11.
Bentler, P. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Tucker, L., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38(1), 1–10.CrossRef
13.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
14.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modelling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
15.
Løchting, I., Garratt, A. M., Klokkerud, M., & Fjernstad, E. (2012). Development of the Rheumatic Disease Illness Perception Questionnaire (RD-IPQ): Reliability, validity and responsiveness. Clinical and Experimental Rheumatology, 30(2), 308.PubMed
16.
Loge, J. H., Kaasa, S., Hjermstad, M. J., & Kvien, T. K. (1998). Translation and performance of the Norwegian SF-36 Health Survey in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. I. Data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability, and construct validity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1069–1176.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Dewey, J. E. (2000). How to score Version 2 of the SF-36 Health Survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
18.
Wahl, A. K., Rustoen, T., Hanestad, B. R., Lerdal, A., & Moum, T. (2004). Quality of life in the general Norwegian population, measured by the Quality of Life Scale (QOLS-N). Quality of Life Research, 13(5), 1001–1009.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Wahl, A., Burckhardt, C., Wiklund, I., & Hanestad, B. R. (1998). The Norwegian version of the Quality of Life Scale (QOLS-N). A validation and reliability study in patients suffering from psoriasis. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 12(4), 215–222.PubMed
20.
Fleiss, J. L., & Cohen, J. (1973). The equivalence of weighted kappa and the intraclass correlation coefficient as measures of reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 33(3), 613–619.CrossRef
21.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Katz, J. N., Larson, M. G., Phillips, C. B., Fossel, A. H., & Liang, M. H. (1992). Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer form health status instruments. Medical Care, 30(10), 917–925.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33(1), 159–174.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Hush, J. M., Kamper, S. J., Stanton, T. R., Ostelo, R., & Refshauge, K. M. (2012). Standardized measurement of recovery from nonspecific back pain. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93(5), 849–855.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Jenkinson, C., Stradling, J., & Petersen, S. (1998). How should we evaluate health status? A comparison of three methods in patients presenting with obstructive sleep apnoea. Quality of Life Research, 7(2), 95–100.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Garratt, A. M., & Ruta, D. A. (1996). Taking a patient-centred approach to outcome measurement. In A. Hutchinson, E. McColl, M. Christie, & C. Riccalton (Eds.), Health outcome measures in primary care (pp. 77–89). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.
27.
Løchting, I., Fjerstad, E., & Garratt, A. M. (2013). Illness perceptions in patients receiving rheumatology rehabilitation: Association with health and outcomes at 12 months. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14, 28.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Evaluation of the stages of completion and scoring of the Patient Generated Index (PGI) in patients with rheumatic diseases
Auteur
Andrew M. Garratt
Publicatiedatum
03-06-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 11/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1014-7

Andere artikelen Uitgave 11/2015

Quality of Life Research 11/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Psychometric properties and feasibility of the Swedish version of the Philadelphia Geriatric Center Morale Scale

OriginalPaper

A new perspective on proxy report: Investigating implicit processes of understanding through patient–proxy congruence

Brief Communication

Validation of the Community Integration Questionnaire in the adult burn injury population

OriginalPaper

Short-term quality of life in patients undergoing colonic surgery using enhanced recovery after surgery program versus conventional perioperative management

OriginalPaper

Factor structure and construct validity of the Adult Social Care Outcomes Toolkit for Carers (ASCOT-Carer)

OriginalPaper

Do individuals with and without depression value depression differently? And if so, why?