Literature DB >> 15085903

Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life?

A G E M de Boer1, J J B van Lanschot, P F M Stalmeier, J W van Sandick, J B F Hulscher, J C J M de Haes, M A G Sprangers.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the validity, reliability and responsiveness of a single, global quality of life question to multi-item scales.
METHOD: Data were obtained from 83 consecutive patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. Quality of life was measured at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 and 12 months post-operatively with a single-item Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100, the multi-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20 (MOS SF-20) and Rotterdam Symptom Check-List (RSCL). Convergent and discriminant validity, test-retest reliability and both distribution-based and anchor-based responsiveness were evaluated. MAJOR
FINDINGS: At baseline and at 5 weeks, the VAS showed high correlations with the MOS SF-20 health perceptions scale (r = 0.70 and 0.72) and moderate to high correlations with all other subscales of the MOS SF-20 and RSCL (r = 0.29-0.70). The test-retest reliability intra-class correlation for the VAS was 0.87. At 5 weeks post-operatively, the distribution-based responsiveness was moderate for the VAS (standardised response mean: -0.47; effect size: -0.56), high for the physical subscales of the MOS SF-20 and RSCL (-1.08 to -1.51) and low for the psychological subscales (0.11 to -0.25). Five weeks post-operatively, anchor-based responsiveness was highest for the VAS (r = 0.54).
CONCLUSION: The VAS is an instrument with good validity, excellent reliability, moderate distribution-based responsiveness and good anchor-based responsiveness compared to multi-item questionnaires. Its use is recommended in clinical trials to assess global quality of life.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15085903     DOI: 10.1023/B:QURE.0000018499.64574.1f

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Life Res        ISSN: 0962-9343            Impact factor:   4.147


  28 in total

Review 1.  Quality of life as an outcome measure in surgical oncology.

Authors:  B S Langenhoff; P F Krabbe; T Wobbes; T J Ruers
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 6.939

2.  Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Statistics and strategies for evaluation.

Authors:  R A Deyo; P Diehr; D L Patrick
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1991-08

3.  Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure.

Authors:  D Fischer; A L Stewart; D A Bloch; K Lorig; D Laurent; H Holman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Sep 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  The MOS short-form general health survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population.

Authors:  A L Stewart; R D Hays; J E Ware
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1988-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index.

Authors:  D L Patrick; J W Bush; M M Chen
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  1973       Impact factor: 3.402

6.  Single-item indicators in nursing research.

Authors:  J M Youngblut; G R Casper
Journal:  Res Nurs Health       Date:  1993-12       Impact factor: 2.228

7.  Functional outcome after restorative panproctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis decreases an otherwise enhanced quality of life.

Authors:  A O'Bichere; K Wilkinson; S Rumbles; C Norton; C Green; R K Phillips
Journal:  Br J Surg       Date:  2000-06       Impact factor: 6.939

8.  Quality of life assessment: values and pitfalls.

Authors:  T M Gill
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  1995-12       Impact factor: 18.000

9.  Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  J A Sloan; C L Loprinzi; S A Kuross; A W Miser; J R O'Fallon; M R Mahoney; I M Heid; M E Bretscher; N L Vaught
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1998-11       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  The development of a method for assessing the quality of life of cancer patients.

Authors:  P J Selby; J A Chapman; J Etazadi-Amoli; D Dalley; N F Boyd
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  1984-07       Impact factor: 7.640

View more
  156 in total

1.  Quality of life predicts progression-free survival in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib versus interferon alfa.

Authors:  David Cella; Joseph C Cappelleri; Andrew Bushmakin; Claudie Charbonneau; Jim Z Li; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; M Dror Michaelson; Robert J Motzer
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2009-03       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Are Single-Item Global Ratings Useful for Assessing Health Status?

Authors:  Cathaleene Macias; Paul B Gold; Dost Öngür; Bruce M Cohen; Trishan Panch
Journal:  J Clin Psychol Med Settings       Date:  2015-10-22

3.  Symptoms from treatment with sunitinib or sorafenib: a multicenter explorative cohort study to explore the influence of patient-reported outcomes on therapy decisions.

Authors:  J J Koldenhof; P O Witteveen; R de Vos; M Walraven; C N Tillier; H M W Verheul; S C C M Teunissen
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 3.603

4.  Sociodemographic, disease status, and illness perceptions predictors of global self-ratings of health and quality of life among those with coronary heart disease--one year follow-up study.

Authors:  Anna-Mari Aalto; Arja R Aro; John Weinman; Monique Heijmans; Kristiina Manderbacka; Marko Elovainio
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2006-07-07       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: the challenges for health outcomes assessment.

Authors:  Peter M Fayers
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-04-07       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Measurement properties of the Work Limitations Questionnaire were sufficient among cancer survivors.

Authors:  Sietske J Tamminga; Jos H A M Verbeek; Monique H W Frings-Dresen; Angela G E M De Boer
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2013-07-27       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Bilateral transfemoral/transtibial amputations due to battle injuries: a comparison of Vietnam veterans with Iraq and Afghanistan servicemembers.

Authors:  Paul J Dougherty; Lynne V McFarland; Douglas G Smith; Gayle E Reiber
Journal:  Clin Orthop Relat Res       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 4.176

8.  Association between strong patient-oncologist agreement regarding goals of care and aggressive care at end-of-life for patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  Sara L Douglas; Barbara J Daly; Amy R Lipson; Eric Blackstone
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2020-02-14       Impact factor: 3.603

9.  Days of heroin use predict poor self-reported health in hospitalized heroin users.

Authors:  Lidia Z Meshesha; Judith I Tsui; Jane M Liebschutz; Denise Crooks; Bradley J Anderson; Debra S Herman; Michael D Stein
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2013-08-14       Impact factor: 3.913

10.  Is the severity of congenital heart disease associated with the quality of life and perceived health of adult patients?

Authors:  P Moons; K Van Deyk; S De Geest; M Gewillig; W Budts
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-09       Impact factor: 5.994

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.