Ga naar de hoofdinhoud
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research

Response to the discussion of the assessment of functioning

  • 21-07-2022
  • Letter to the Editor
Gepubliceerd in:
Auteurs
Mark A. Ferro
Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 12/2022

Extract

We thank our colleagues for their comments regarding our use of terminology and the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in examining the psychometric properties of the parent-reported KIDSCREEN-27 in young children [1]. We agree that research directed to measures of quality of life for young children with chronic physical illness is warranted. …
vorige artikel Discussion on the assessment of functioning in people under 18 years of age
volgende artikel Publisher Correction to: Response to the discussion of the assessment of functioning
Titel
Response to the discussion of the assessment of functioning
Auteurs
Mark A. Ferro
Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
Publicatiedatum
21-07-2022
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 12/2022
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03201-3
Deze inhoud is alleen zichtbaar als je bent ingelogd en de juiste rechten hebt.

Andere artikelen Uitgave 12/2022

How important is subjective well-being for patients? A qualitative interview study of people with psoriasis

  • Open Access

Health-related quality of life in long-term Caribbean prostate cancer survivors: comparisons with prostate cancer-free men

Accuracy of mixture item response theory models for identifying sample heterogeneity in patient-reported outcomes: a simulation study

Measurement properties of the Dutch PROMIS-29 v2.1 profile in people with and without chronic conditions

  • Open Access

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test–retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures

  • Open Access

Publisher Correction to: Response to the discussion of the assessment of functioning

  • Publisher Correction