Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
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.
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.
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2000). Measuring healthy days: Population assessment of health-related quality of life. Atlanta: CDC.
Yfantopoulos, J. (2001). The Greek version of the EuroQol (EQ-5D) instrument. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 18, 180–191.
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.
Yfantopoulos, J. (2001). Validation and measurement of quality of life in Greece using EQ-15D. Archives of Hellenic Medicine, 18, 279–287.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
Jöreskog, K., Sörbom, D., du Toit, S., & du Toit, M. (2000). LISREL 8: New statistical features. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
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.
Hawthorne, G. (2006). Measuring incontinence in Australia. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
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
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
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
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press.
Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(3), 461–483. CrossRef
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.
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.
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.
Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1996). PRELIS 2: User’s reference guide. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2008). LISREL 8.80 for windows [Computer Software]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.
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.
Bartholomew, D., Knott, M., & Moustaki, I. (2011). Latent variable models and factor analysis: A unified approach (3rd ed.). Chichester: Wiley. CrossRef
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
Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35, 299–331. CrossRef
Raykov, T. (2002). Analytic estimation of standard error and confidence interval for scale reliability. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 37, 89–103. CrossRef
D’Agostino, R., & Pearson, E. (1973). Tests for departures from normality: Empirical results for the distribution of √b 1 and b 2. Biometrika, 60, 613–622.
Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
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
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. CrossRef
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
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.
Richardson, J. (2010). Psychometric validity and multi- attribute utility (MAU) instruments [research paper 57]. Victoria: The Centre for Health Economics, Monash University.
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.
Edwards, J. R. (2011). The fallacy of formative measurement. Organizational Research Methods, 14(2), 370–388. CrossRef
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.
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.
- Psychometric and factor analytic evaluation of the 15D health-related quality of life instrument: the case of Greece
- Springer Netherlands