World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF): Analyses of Their Item Response Theory Properties Based on the Graded Responses Model

Shahrum Vahedi, Shahrum Vahedi

Abstract

Objective: This study has used Item Response Theory (IRT) to examine the psychometric properties of Health-Related Quality-of-Life.

Method: This investigation is a descriptive- analytic study. Subjects were 370 undergraduate students of nursing and midwifery who were selected from Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. All participants were asked to complete the Farsi version of WHOQOL-BREF. Samejima's graded response model was used for the analyses.

Results: The results revealed that the discrimination parameters for all items in the four scales were low to moderate. The threshold parameters showed adequate representation of the relevant traits from low to the mean trait level. With the exception of 15, 18, 24 and 26 items, all other items showed low item information function values, and thus relatively high reliability from low trait levels to moderate levels.

Conclusions: The results of this study indicate that although there was general support for the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF from an IRT perspective, this measure can be further improved. IRT analyses provided useful measurement information and demonstrated to be a better methodological approach for enhancing our knowledge of the functionality of WHOQOL-BREF.

Keywords: Item response theory; Psychometrics; Quality of life.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scree plot of the WHOQOL-BREF at baseline and exit with randomly generated scree (parallel analysis
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of category response and item response functions, and test information function (continuous lines) and standard error curves for the four scales of the quality of life.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of category response and item response functions, and test information function (continuous lines) and standard error curves for the four scales of the quality of life.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of category response and item response functions, and test information function (continuous lines) and standard error curves for the four scales of the quality of life.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of category response and item response functions, and test information function (continuous lines) and standard error curves for the four scales of the quality of life.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of category response and item response functions, and test information function (continuous lines) and standard error curves for the four scales of the quality of life.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Illustration of category response and item response functions, and test information function (continuous lines) and standard error curves for the four scales of the quality of life.

References

    1. WHOQOL Group. study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL) Qual Life Res. 1993;2:153–159.
    1. Carr A, Higginson I, Robinson PG. Quality of Life, Volume 13. BMJ Books; 2003.
    1. WHOQOL Group. Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and current status. Int J Ment Health. 1994;23:24–56.
    1. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1569–1585.
    1. Noerholm V, Groenvold M, Watt T, Bjorner JB, Rasmussen NA, Bech P. Quality of life in the Danish general population – normative data and validity of WHOQOL-BREF using Rasch and item response theory models. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:531–540.
    1. World Health Organization's Quality of Life group: Measuring Quality of Life; 1992. Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL)
    1. Nejat S, Montazeri A, Holakouie Naieni K, Mohammad K, Majdzadeh SR. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOLBREF) questionnaire: Translation and validation study of the Iranian version] Journal of School of public Health & Institute of Public Health Research. 2006;4:1–12.
    1. Nørholm V, Bech P. The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Questionnaire: Danish validation study. Nord J Psychiatry. 2001;55:229–235.
    1. Brinbaum A. Some latent trait models and their use in inferring an examinee's ability. In: Lord FM, Novick MR, editors. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley; 1968.
    1. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28:551–558.
    1. Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2000.
    1. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests Chicago. IL: University of Chicago Press; 1960.
    1. Gomez R, Fisher JW. Item response theory analysis of the spiritual well-being questionnaire. Pers Individ Dif. 2005;38:1107–1121.
    1. Fayers PM, Machin. DC. Quality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2007.
    1. Steinberg L, Thissen D. Item response theory in personality research. In: Shrout PE, Fiske ST, editors. Personality research, methods, and theory: a festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske. Hillside. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1995.
    1. Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: Data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. Br J Med Psychol. 1999;72:51–61.
    1. Harper A, Power M. WHOQOL User manual; Edinburgh; 1999.
    1. Samejima F. Estimation of latent trait ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement. 1969;17:1–100.
    1. Thissen D. MULTILOG: multiple category item analysis and test scoring using item response theory. Chicago: Scientific Software; 1991.
    1. Horn JL. A rationale and a test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30:179–185.
    1. O'Connor BP. SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000;32:396–402.
    1. Arbuckle J L. Amos user's guide version 18.0. Chicago: SmallWaters Corporation; 2009.
    1. Baker FB. The basics of item response theory. Portsmouth, NH: Heineman; 1985.
    1. Neal DJ, Corbin WR, Fromme K. Measurement of alcohol-related consequences among high school and college students: Application of item response models to the Rutgers alcohol problem index. Psychol Assess. 2006;18:402–414.
    1. Kahler CW, Strong DR, Hayaki J, Ramsey SE, Brown RA. An item response analysis of the Alcohol Dependence Scale in treatment-seeking alcoholics. J Stud Alcohol Drugs. 2003;64:127–136.
    1. Sijtsma K, Emons WH, Bouwmeester S, Nyklíček I, Roorda LD. Nonparametric IRT analysis of Quality-of-Life Scales and its application to the World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF ) Qual Life Res. 2008;17:275–290.
    1. Lin TH, Yao G. Evaluating Item Discrimination Power of WHOQOLBREF from an Item Response Model Perspectives. Soc Indic Res. 2009;91:141–153.
    1. DeMars C. Item response theory. USA: Oxford University Press; 2010.

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi