AIM: There are many misconceptions about what constitutes 'quality of life' (QoL). It is often difficult for researchers and clinicians to determine which instruments will be most appropriate to their purpose. The aim of the current paper is to describe QoL instruments for children and adolescents with neurodisabilities against criteria that we think are important when choosing or developing a QoL instrument. METHOD: QoL instruments for children and adolescents with neurodisabilities were reviewed and described based on their purpose, conceptual focus, origin of domains and items, opportunity for self report, clarity (lack of ambiguity), potential threat to self-esteem, cognitive or emotional burden, number of items and time to complete, and psychometric properties. RESULTS: Several generic and condition-specific instruments were identified for administration to children and adolescents with neurodisabilities - cerebral palsy, epilepsy and spina bifida, and hydrocephalus. Many have parent-proxy and self-report versions and adequate reliability and validity. However, they were often developed with minimal involvement from families, focus on functioning rather than well-being, and have items that may produce emotional upset. INTERPRETATION: As well as ensuring that a QoL instrument has sound psychometric properties, researchers and clinicians should understand how an instrument's theoretical focus will have influenced domains, items, and scoring.
AIM: There are many misconceptions about what constitutes 'quality of life' (QoL). It is often difficult for researchers and clinicians to determine which instruments will be most appropriate to their purpose. The aim of the current paper is to describe QoL instruments for children and adolescents with neurodisabilities against criteria that we think are important when choosing or developing a QoL instrument. METHOD: QoL instruments for children and adolescents with neurodisabilities were reviewed and described based on their purpose, conceptual focus, origin of domains and items, opportunity for self report, clarity (lack of ambiguity), potential threat to self-esteem, cognitive or emotional burden, number of items and time to complete, and psychometric properties. RESULTS: Several generic and condition-specific instruments were identified for administration to children and adolescents with neurodisabilities - cerebral palsy, epilepsy and spina bifida, and hydrocephalus. Many have parent-proxy and self-report versions and adequate reliability and validity. However, they were often developed with minimal involvement from families, focus on functioning rather than well-being, and have items that may produce emotional upset. INTERPRETATION: As well as ensuring that a QoL instrument has sound psychometric properties, researchers and clinicians should understand how an instrument's theoretical focus will have influenced domains, items, and scoring.
Authors: Jenny Downs; Peter Jacoby; Helen Leonard; Amy Epstein; Nada Murphy; Elise Davis; Dinah Reddihough; Andrew Whitehouse; Katrina Williams Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-11-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Konrad M Szymanski; Rosalia Misseri; Benjamin Whittam; Sonia-Maria Raposo; Shelly J King; Martin Kaefer; Richard C Rink; Mark P Cain Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-04-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Samantha J Anthony; Enid Selkirk; Lillian Sung; Robert J Klaassen; David Dix; Anne F Klassen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-08-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Candice L Osborne; Christina Petersson; James E Graham; Walter J Meyer; Rune J Simeonsson; Oscar E Suman; Kenneth J Ottenbacher Journal: Disabil Rehabil Date: 2016-10-19 Impact factor: 3.033
Authors: Hugo Câmara-Costa; Marion Opatowski; Leila Francillette; Hanna Toure; Dominique Brugel; Anne Laurent-Vannier; Philippe Meyer; Laurence Watier; Georges Dellatolas; Mathilde Chevignard Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-09-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kelly M Kenzik; Sanjeev Y Tuli; Dennis A Revicki; Elizabeth A Shenkman; I-Chan Huang Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 2.583