Skip to main content
Log in

The influence of decisions made by developers on health status questionnaire content

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

To investigate the effect of stringent and lenient criteria upon the process of item selection in the development of a health status questionnaire, an item pool (179 items) was administered to 139 patients with left ventricular dysfunction. Associations between each item and the criteria of gender, age, duration of disease, global health and global impairment were examined. Items were selected from the pool on the basis of their associations with the criteria using four levels of stringency. The most stringent criteria rejected items which had a shared variance of ≥4% with gender, age and duration of disease and a shared variance of ≥6% with global health and impairment. The most lenient criteria rejected items which had a shared variance of ≥6% with gender, age and duration of disease and a shared variance of ≥4% with global health and impairment. Using the most stringent criteria, 75 items were selected, compared with 127 items using the most lenient criteria. Small differences in the level of association had large effects on item selection. The choice of level of association used to base item selection can have a crucial influence on questionnaire content.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Guyatt GH, Bombardier C, Tugwell PX. Measuring disease-specific quality of life in clinical trials. CMAJ 1986; 134: 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kline P. An Easy Guide to Factor Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale development. Psychol Assess 1995; 7(3): 309-319.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Smith GT, McCarthy DM. Methodological considerations in the refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess 1995; 7(3): 300-308.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Mahler DA et al. The measurement of dyspnea. Contents, interobserver agreement, and physiologic correlates of two new clinical indexes. Chest 1984; 85(6): 751-758.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Hunt SM et al. A quantitative approach to perceived health status: a validation study. J Epidemiol Commun Health 1980; 34: 281-286.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Rosenthal M, Lohr KN, Rubenstein RS. Conceptualisation and Measurement of Physiologic Health in Adults. Vol. 5: Congestive Heart Failure. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Rector TS et al. Evaluation by patients with heart failure of the effects of enalapril compared with hydralazine plus isosorbide dinitrate on quality of life. Circulation 1993; 87(Suppl VI): V171-V177.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Guyatt GH et al. Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in heart failure. J Gen Intern Med 1989; 4: 101-107.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN. Patients' self-assessment of their congestive heart failure. Part 2: content, reliability and validity of a new measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Heart Failure 1987; 3: 198-209.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Jones PW, Quirk FH, Baveystock CM. The St Georges Respiratory Questionnaire. Respirat Med 1991; 85(Suppl B): 25-31.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bergner M et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; XIX: 787-805.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Wiklung I et al. Self-assessment of quality of life in severe heart failure. Scand J Psychol 1987; 28: 220-225.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Goldman L et al. Pitfalls in the serial assessment of cardiac functional status. How a reduction in “ordinary” activity may reduce the apparent degree of cardiac compromise and give a misleading impression of improvement. J Chronic Dis 1982; 35: 763-771.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Working Group on Rehabilitation of the European Society of Cardiology. Risk of poor quality of life. Eur Heart J 1992; 13:(Suppl C): 20-34.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Feinstein AR, Fisher MB, Pigeon JG. Changes in dyspnea-fatigue ratings as indicators of quality of life in the treatment of congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol 1989; 64: 50-55.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Godden J. Educating patients about congestive cardiac failure. Nursing Times 1994; 90(28): 29-30.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Goodyer LI. Measurement of the effects of medication counselling given to elderly patients with heart failure. King's College London: PhD thesis, 1992.

  19. Grady KL. Quality of life in patients with chronic heart failure. Crit Care Nursing Clinics N Am 1993; 5(4): 661-670.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Jackson G. Heart Failure, 2nd edn. London: Martin Dunitz Ltd, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Jenkins CD et al. The measurement of health related quality of life: major dimensions identified by factor analysis. Soc Sci Med 1990; 31(8): 925-931.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kannel WB. Epidemiology and prevention of cardiac failure: Framingham Study insights. Eur Heart J 1987; 8(Suppl F): 23-39.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Mayou R et al. Cardiac failure: symptoms and functional status. J Psychosomat Res 1991; 35(4/5): 399-407.

    Google Scholar 

  24. McFate Smith W. Epidemiology of congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol 1985; 55: 3A-8A.

    Google Scholar 

  25. McKee PA et al. The natural history of congestive heart failure: the Framingham Study. N Engl J Med 1971; 285(26): 1441-1446.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Milne BJ, Logan AG, Flanagan PT. Alterations in health perceptions and lifestyle in treated hypertensives. J Chronic Dis 1985; 38(1): 37-45.

    Google Scholar 

  27. O'Boyle CA. Quality of life and cardiovascular medication. Irish J Psychol 1994; 15(1): 126-147.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Pouleur H. Improving patient care: some unresolved issues in heart failure. Cardiology 1994; 84(6): 408-412.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Tandon PK, Stander H, Schwarz P, Jr. Analysis of quality of life data from a randomized, placebo-controlled heart failure trial. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42(10): 955-962.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wenger NK. Quality of life in chronic cardiovascular illness. Ann Acad Med Singapore 1992; 21(1): 137-140.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Howell DC. Statistical Methods for Psychology, 2nd edn. Boston: PWS Publishers, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

O'Leary, C.J., Jones, P.W. The influence of decisions made by developers on health status questionnaire content. Qual Life Res 7, 545–550 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008882626075

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008882626075

Navigation