A psychometric comparison of health-related quality of life measures in chronic liver disease
A psychometric comparison of health-related quality of life measures in chronic liver disease
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0895-4356(00)00372-3
复制
发表时间：
2001-06-01
影响因子：
7.2
通讯作者：
de Man, RA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ünal, G;de Boer, JB;de Man, RA
四项通用[疾病影响概况（SIP-68）、简明健康调查表（SF-36）、EuroQol工具（EQ-5D）、COOP/ WONCA图表]、两项特定领域健康相关生活质量测量[艾滋病毒概述问题评估系统（HOPES）的性行为量表、多维疲劳指数（MFI-20）]，采用自编的12项症状指数量表和自编的12项症状指数量表对慢性肝病患者进行了可行性、重测信度、内部一致性信度、结构效度和已知群体效度的比较。所有测试均能在10 min内完成，并在慢性肝病患者中表现出良好的心理测量学性能。SF-36和MFI-20在信度、结构效度和区分能力方面表现相对最好。HOPES的性行为量表表现出相对较差的性能，因为缺失值率高于5%。需要进一步研究仪器对重要临床变化的敏感性。(C)2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.
Four generic [the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP-68), Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), EuroQol instrument (EQ-5D), COOP/ WONCA charts], two domain-specific health-related quality of life measures [the sexuality scale of the HIV Overview Problems Evaluating System (HOPES), Multi-dimensional Fatigue Index (MFI-20)], and a self-developed 12-item symptom index were compared in terms of feasibility, test-retest reliability, internal consistency reliability, construct validity, and known groups validity in patients with chronic liver disease. All instruments could be completed within 10 min and exhibited a good psychometric performance in patients with chronic liver disease. The SF-36 and the MFI-20 performed relatively best in terms of reliability, construct validity, and discriminative ability. The sexuality scale of the HOPES demonstrated a relatively poor performance, as the missing value rate was higher than 5%. Further research is needed into the sensitivity to important clinical changes of the instruments. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved.