Literature DB >> 29143905

Measurement invariance of the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire across three European countries.

David Santos1, Francisco J Abad1, Marta Miret2,3,4, Somnath Chatterji5, Beatriz Olaya3,6, Katarzyna Zawisza7, Seppo Koskinen8, Matilde Leonardi9, Josep Maria Haro3,6, José Luis Ayuso-Mateos2,3,4, Francisco Félix Caballero10,11,12.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Developing valid and reliable instruments that can be used across countries is necessary. The present study aimed to test the comparability of quality of life scores across three European countries (Finland, Poland, and Spain).
METHOD: Data from 9987 participants interviewed between 2011 and 2012 were employed, using nationally representative samples from the Collaborative Research on Ageing in Europe project. The WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire is a 13-item test and was employed to assess the quality of life in the three considered countries. First of all, two models (a bifactor model and a two-correlated factor model) were proposed and tested in each country by means of confirmatory factor models. Second, measurement invariance across the three countries was tested using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for that model which showed the best fit. Finally, differences in latent mean scores across countries were analyzed.
RESULTS: The results indicated that the bifactor model showed more satisfactory goodness-of-fit indices than the two-correlated factor model and that the WHOQOL-AGE questionnaire is a partially scalar invariant instrument (only two items do not meet scalar invariance). Quality of life scores were higher in Finland (considered as the reference category: mean = 0, SD = 1) than in Spain (mean = - 0.547, SD = 1.22) and Poland (mean = - 0.927, SD = 1.26).
CONCLUSIONS: Respondents from Finland, Poland, and Spain attribute the same meaning to the latent construct studied, and differences across countries can be due to actual differences in quality of life. According to the results, the comparability across the different considered samples is supported and the WHOQOL-AGE showed an adequate validity in terms of cross-country validation. Caution should be exercised with the two items which did not meet scalar invariance, as potential indicator of differential item functioning.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bifactor model; Measurement invariance; Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis; Quality of life; WHOQOL-AGE

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29143905     DOI: 10.1007/s11136-017-1737-8

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


  28 in total

1.  The World Health Organization's WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A report from the WHOQOL group.

Authors:  S M Skevington; M Lotfy; K A O'Connell
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The relationships between WAIS-IV factor index scores and educational level: A bifactor model approach.

Authors:  Francisco J Abad; Miguel A Sorrel; Francisco J Román; Roberto Colom
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2015-08-31

3.  The EUROHIS-QOL 8-item index: psychometric results of a cross-cultural field study.

Authors:  Silke Schmidt; Holger Mühlan; Mick Power
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2005-09-01       Impact factor: 3.367

Review 4.  Determinants of health and disability in ageing population: the COURAGE in Europe Project (collaborative research on ageing in Europe).

Authors:  Matilde Leonardi; Somnath Chatterji; Seppo Koskinen; Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Josep Maria Haro; Giovanni Frisoni; Lucilla Frattura; Andrea Martinuzzi; Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk; Michal Gmurek; Ramon Serrano; Carla Finocchiaro
Journal:  Clin Psychol Psychother       Date:  2013-07-24

5.  Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group.

Authors: 
Journal:  Psychol Med       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 7.723

6.  Cognitive reserve is associated with quality of life: A population-based study.

Authors:  Elvira Lara; Ai Koyanagi; Félix Caballero; Joan Domènech-Abella; Marta Miret; Beatriz Olaya; Laura Rico-Uribe; Jose Luis Ayuso-Mateos; Josep Maria Haro
Journal:  Exp Gerontol       Date:  2016-11-05       Impact factor: 4.032

Review 7.  Measurement invariance of the Satisfaction with Life Scale: reviewing three decades of research.

Authors:  Scott D Emerson; Martin Guhn; Anne M Gadermann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-03-21       Impact factor: 4.147

8.  Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life.

Authors:  P M Fayers; D J Hand
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  1997-03       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  Reliability, validity and clinical correlates of the Quality of Life in Alzheimer's disease (QoL-AD) scale in medical inpatients.

Authors:  Gustav Torisson; Lars Stavenow; Lennart Minthon; Elisabet Londos
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  Determinants of Quality of Life in Ageing Populations: Results from a Cross-Sectional Study in Finland, Poland and Spain.

Authors:  Alberto Raggi; Barbara Corso; Nadia Minicuci; Rui Quintas; Davide Sattin; Laura De Torres; Somnath Chatterji; Giovanni Battista Frisoni; Josep Maria Haro; Seppo Koskinen; Andrea Martinuzzi; Marta Miret; Beata Tobiasz-Adamczyk; Matilde Leonardi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-07-19       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Assessing measurement invariance of MSQOL-54 across Italian and English versions.

Authors:  Andrea Giordano; Silvia Testa; Marta Bassi; Sabina Cilia; Antonio Bertolotto; Maria Esmeralda Quartuccio; Erika Pietrolongo; Monica Falautano; Monica Grobberio; Claudia Niccolai; Beatrice Allegri; Rosa Gemma Viterbo; Paolo Confalonieri; Ambra Mara Giovannetti; Eleonora Cocco; Maria Grazia Grasso; Alessandra Lugaresi; Elisa Ferriani; Ugo Nocentini; Mauro Zaffaroni; Alysha De Livera; George Jelinek; Alessandra Solari; Rosalba Rosato
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short form across ten countries: the application of Bayesian approximate measurement invariance.

Authors:  Zahra Bagheri; Parisa Chamanpara; Peyman Jafari; Yatan Pal Singh Balhara; Sidharth Arya; Ramdas Ransing; Ana Đorić; Rajna Knez; Tuong-Vi Vu Thi; Truong Ngoc Huong; Helin Yilmaz Kafali; Gamze Erzin; Zahir Vally; Mita Rani Roy Chowdhury; Pawan Sharma; Rabi Shakya; Luís Antônio Monteiro Campos; Anna Rebeka Szczegielniak; Dejan Stevanović
Journal:  BMC Psychol       Date:  2022-06-24

3.  Quality of life predictors in informal caregivers of seniors with a functional performance deficit - an example of home care in Poland.

Authors:  Barbara Ślusarska; Agnieszka Bartoszek; Katarzyna Kocka; Alina Deluga; Agnieszka Chrzan-Rodak; Grzegorz Nowicki
Journal:  Clin Interv Aging       Date:  2019-05-17       Impact factor: 4.458

4.  Can We Apply WHOQOL-AGE to Asian Population? Verifying Its Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties in a Convenience Sample From Taiwan.

Authors:  Chung-Ying Lin; Jung-Der Wang; Li-Fan Liu
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2020-11-24

5.  Systematic review of 29 self-report instruments for assessing quality of life in older adults receiving aged care services.

Authors:  Joyce Siette; Gilbert Thomas Knaggs; Yvonne Zurynski; Julie Ratcliffe; Laura Dodds; Johanna Westbrook
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-11-18       Impact factor: 2.692

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.