Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Items (or indicators) that constitute “quality of life” instruments can be classified as either reflective (manifestations of some underlying construct), causal (the construct is an effect of the indicators), or composite (the construct is an exact linear combination of the indicators). Psychometric methods based on inter-item associations are only appropriate for reflective indicators, whereas other statistical and non-statistical validation methods can be used for composite or causal indicators. Thus, the distinction has important practical, as well as theoretical, implications. Attempts have been made to empirically identify which items of the EORTC QLQ-C30, a cancer-specific instrument, are causal and which are reflective. Such attempts, however, first require commitment to a particular definition of quality of life, of which there are many. Whether an indicator forms a composite, is causal or reflective of quality of life will depend on the definition adopted, and therefore, the reflective–composite–causal distinction is, arguably, best established on conceptual rather empirical grounds, guided by the “mental experiments” suggested by Bollen (Structural equations with latent variables, Wiley, New York, 1989). Conceptual models of health status and quality of life, as well as a cognitive-linguistic approach to quality of life assessment, may make some contribution to this practice. Theoretical consideration of indicator content can guide not only instrument development and validation, but also the selection of an appropriate instrument.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Bollen, K., & Lennox, R. (1991). Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 110(2), 305–314. CrossRef
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150. PubMed
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (2002). Causal variables, indicator variables and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 165(2), 233–253. CrossRef
Diamantopoulos, A., & Winklhofer, H. M. (2001). Index construction with formative indicators: An alternative to scale development. Journal of Marketing Research, 38(2), 269–277. CrossRef
Ferrans, C. E. (2005). Definitions and conceptual models of quality of life. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. Snyder (Eds.), Outcomes research in cancer: Measures, methods and applications (pp. 14–30). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
DeVellis, R. F. (2003). Scale development: theory and applications (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85(5), 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
Cella, D. F., Tulsky, D. S., Gray, G., Sarafian, B., Linn, E., Bonomi, A., et al. (1993). The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 11(3), 570–579. PubMed
Thorndike, R. M. (2005). History of factor analysis: A psychological perspective. In B. S. Everitt & D. C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science (Vol. 2, pp. 842–851). Chichester: Wiley.
Streiner, D. L., & Norman, G. R. (2003). Health measurement scales : A practical guide to their development and use (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Feinstein, A. R. (1987). Clinimetrics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
de Vet, H. C. W., Terwee, C. B., & Bouter, L. M. (2003). Clinimetrics and psychometrics: Two sides of the same coin. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 1146–1147. CrossRef
Streiner, D. L. (2003). Test development: Two-sided coin or one-sided Mobius strip? Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 1148–1149. CrossRef
Barofsky, I. (2012). Quality: Its definition and measurement as applied to the medically Ill. New York: Springer. CrossRef
Bollen, K. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. CrossRef
Cella, D. F. (1995). Measuring quality of life in palliative care. Seminars in Oncology, 22, 73–81. PubMed
Osoba, D. (1994). Lessons learned from measuring health-related quality of life in oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 12(3), 608–616. PubMed
Schipper, H., Clinch, J. J., & Olweny, C. L. M. (1996). Quality of life studies: Definitions and conceptual issues. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
Patrick, D. L., & Erickson, P. (1993). Health status and health policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273(1), 59–65.
Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of life (2nd ed.). Chichester: Wiley. CrossRef
Kemmler, G., Holzner, B., Kopp, M., Dunser, M., Margreiter, R., Greil, R., et al. (1999). Comparison of two quality-of-life instruments for cancer patients: the functional assessment of cancer therapy-General and the European Organization for Research and Treatment Of Cancer Quality Of Life Questionnaire-C30. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17(9), 2932–2940. PubMed
Luckett, T., King, M. T., Butow, P. N., Oguchi, M., Rankin, N., Price, M. A., et al. (2011). Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. Annals of Oncology, 22(10), 2179–2190. PubMedCrossRef
- Reflective, causal, and composite indicators of quality of life: A conceptual or an empirical distinction?
Daniel S. J. Costa
- Springer International Publishing