Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF(PT) in a sample of elderly citizens

Margarida Goes, Manuel Lopes, João Marôco, Henrique Oliveira, César Fonseca, Margarida Goes, Manuel Lopes, João Marôco, Henrique Oliveira, César Fonseca

Abstract

Background: The goal of this article was to research the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF(PT) instrument in a sample of elderly citizens residing in a rural area in their own homes or at family members' or friends' homes and to compare the results: (i) to those reported by the team of Portuguese researchers that undertaken the instrument's translation/validation to the Portuguese language and (ii) to those reported internationally by the World Health Organization Quality of Life group. An overall quality of life scoring (QOL24-all facets) is also proposed in this article as novelty. The correlation level between QOL24 and the instrument's general facet was also investigated.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study with a sample of 351 elderly citizens (46.4% males and 53.6% females) randomly selected from the official dataset of the Local Health Unit of Baixo Alentejo. All the data were collected by health professionals at the participants' homes following the structured interview methodology and using the WHOQOL-BREF(PT) instrument. Three different structural equation models were developed: (i) a first-order confirmatory factor analysis, to assess the instrument's psychometric properties; (ii) a hierarchical second-order confirmatory factor analysis model, to allow determining the QOL24 scoring; and (iii) a more generic structural equation model, to investigate the correlation level between QOL24 and the instrument's general facet.

Results: The WHOQOL-BREF(PT) showed an "almost very good" goodness of fit (comparative fit index of 0.949 and Tucker-Lewis index of 0.943), an adequate internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: from 0.64 to 0.90; composite reliability: from 0.59 to 0.88) and tolerable convergent validity (average variance extracted: from 0.374 to 0.614). However, discriminant validity was not reached because strong correlations between the first-order factors (four QOL domains) were obtained, together with low values of the average variance extracted. The scoring of QOL domains and QOL24, determined as weighted averages (proposed in this article as novelty) were significantly different than those determined as unweighted averages. The standardized correlation coefficient between QOL24 and the instrument's general facet was of 0.89 (statistically highly significant).

Conclusions: The WHOQOL-BREF(PT) is a psychometrically sound instrument to assess the QOL of the considered population sample. However, the QOL domains were found strongly intertwined. More studies are necessary to validate the weighted average scoring strategy of QOL domains and QOL24. Concurrent validity between QOL24 and the instrument's general facet was considered as "strong".

Keywords: Elderly; Psychometric properties; Quality of life; Structural equation modelling; WHOQOL-BREF.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
First-order CFA model of the WHOQOL-BREF(PT)
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
H-second-order CFA model of the WHOQOL-BREF(PT)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
SEMQOL24-GF model of the WHOQOL-BREF(PT)
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Comparison between the average scores of the entire sample based on WHO strategy (unweighted average) and using the fswi predicted from the H-second-order CFA model (weighted average)

References

    1. Kyu H, Abate D, Abate K, Abay S, et al. Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 359 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE) for 195 countries and territories, 1990–2017: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet. 2018;392:1859–1922. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32335-3.
    1. WHO. World health statistics . Monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2020. p. 2020.
    1. Raggi A, Corso B, Minicuci N, Quintas R, et al. Determinants of quality of life in ageing populations: results from a cross-sectional study in Finland Poland and Spain. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0159293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0159293.
    1. Goes M, Lopes M, Oliveira H, Fonseca C, et al. A nursing care intervention model for elderly people to ascertain general profiles of functionality and self care needs. Sci Rep Nat Res. 2020;10:1–11. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56847-4.
    1. Roser, M, Ritchie, H. Burden of disease. 2016. . Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. Banham, D, Hawthorne, G, Goldney, R, Ratcliffe, J. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) changes in South Australia: comparison of burden of disease morbidity and survey-based health utility estimates. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12.
    1. Health General Directorate. Health System Review - PORTUGAL (Final Report). PHS - Portuguese Health System; 2018.
    1. Prince M, Wu F, Guo Y, Gutierrez-Robledo L, et al. The burden of disease in older people and implications for health policy and practice. Lancet. 2015;385:549–562. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61347-7.
    1. Addington-Hall J, Kalra L. Measuring quality of life: Who should measure quality of life? BMJ. 2001;322:1417–1420. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7299.1417.
    1. Goes, M, Lopes, M, Oliveira, H, Fonseca, C, et al. Biological and socio-demographic predictors of elderly quality of life living in the community in Baixo-Alentejo, Portugal. In: García-Alonso J, Fonseca C, editors. Gerontechnology. Communications in computer and information science, vol 1016. Springer, Cham; 2019. p. 319–26.
    1. Porter M. What Is Value in Health Care? N Engl J Med. 2010;363:2477–2481. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1011024.
    1. Cohn, A. Measuring quality of life. BMJ. 2016;354:i3816.
    1. Bayliss E, Ellis J, Steiner J. Subjective assessments of comorbidity correlate with quality of life health outcomes: Initial validation of a comorbidity assessment instrument. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2005;3:51. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-3-51.
    1. Fleck, M. A avaliação da qualidade de vida - Guia para profissionais de saúde. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora S.A.; 2008.
    1. Van Leeuwen, K, Van Loon, M, Van Nes, F, Bosmans, J, et al. What does quality of life mean to older adults? A thematic synthesis. PLOS ONE. 2019;14:e0213263.
    1. Pequeno, N, Cabral, N, Marchioni, D, Lima, S, et al. Quality of life assessment instruments for adults: a systematic review of population-based studies. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2020;18.
    1. Larson E, Sharma J, Bohren M, Tunçalp Ö. When the patient is the expert: measuring patient experience and satisfaction with care. Bull World Health Organ. 2019;97:563–569. doi: 10.2471/BLT.18.225201.
    1. Ottati F, Campos M. Quality of life and coping strategies in the treatment of oncologic patients. Acta Colomb Psicol. 2014;17:103–111. doi: 10.14718/ACP.2014.17.2.11.
    1. WHOQOL Group. Introducing the WHOQOL instruments. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. 2020. . Accessed December 25th, 2020.
    1. WHOQOL Group. The structure of the WHOQOL-100. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. 2020. . Accessed December 25th, 2020.
    1. WHOQOL Group. Structure of the WHOQOL-BREF. WHOQOL: measuring quality of life. 2020. . Accessed December 25th, 2020.
    1. Harper, A, Power, M, WHOQOL Group, X. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychological medicine. 1998;28(3):551–8.
    1. Skevington, S, Lotfy, M, O'Connell, K. 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. Quality of Life Research. 2004;13:299–310.
    1. Canavarro, M, Serra, A, Simões, M, Pereira, M, et al. WHOQOL-100 (Versão em Português de Portugal do Instrumento de Avaliação da Qualidade de Vida da Organização Mundial de Saúde). 2006. . Accessed December 25th, 2020.
    1. Canavarro, M, Serra, A, Simões, M, Pereira, M, et al. WHOQOL-BREF (Versão em Português de Portugal do Instrumento Abreviado de Avaliação da Qualidade de Vida da Organização Mundial de Saúde). 2006. . Accessed December 25th, 2020.
    1. Canavarro M, Serra A, Perreira M, Simões M, et al. WHOQOL disponível para Portugal: Desenvolvimento dos Instrumentos de Avaliação da Qualidade de Vida da Organização Mundial de Saúde (WHOQOL-100 e WHOQOL-BREF) In: Canavarro M, Serra A, et al., editors. Qualidade de Vida e Saúde: Uma abordagem na perspectiva da Organização Mundial de Saúde. Lisboa: Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian; 2010. pp. 171–190.
    1. Souza A, Alexandre N, Guirardello E, Souza A. Psychometric properties in instruments evaluation of reliability and validity. Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde. 2017;26:649–659. doi: 10.5123/S1679-49742017000300022.
    1. Keszei A, Novak M, Streiner D. Introduction to health measurement scales. J Psychosom Res. 2010;68:319–323. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2010.01.006.
    1. Reeves, A, Baker, R, Casanova, M, Cheatham, S, et al. Examining the factorial validity of the Quality of Life Scale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2020;18.
    1. Yin, S, Njai, R, Barker, L, Siegel, P, et al. Summarizing health-related quality of life (HRQOL): development and testing of a one-factor model. Population Health Metrics. 2016;14.
    1. HECLHUBA. The LHUBA's health ethics committee (i.e. in Portuguese language: "Comissão de Ética para a Saúde da Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Alentejo"). 2020. . Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. HECLHUBA. The health ethics committee of LHUBA is governed by an operating regulation, that was approved on September 17, 2015, by the Board of Directors. 2020. . Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. HECLHUBA. Helsinki declaration 2008 (Portuguese translation). 2020. . Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. WIKI. Baixo Alentejo (intermunicipal community). 2020. ). Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. LHUBA. Unidade Local de Saúde do Baixo Alentejo. 2020. . Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. Scheaffer R, Mendenhall M, Ott R, Gerow K. Elementary survey sampling: cengage learning; 2012.
    1. Oliveira A. Bioestatística descodificada, 2nd ed. Lisbon, Portugal: LIDEL; 2014.
    1. Soper, D. Calculator: a-priori sample size for structural equation models. 2020. . Accessed 25 Dec 2020.
    1. Westland J. Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron Commer Res Appl. 2010;9:476–487. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003.
    1. Cohen, J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1988.
    1. Westland J. Erratum to “Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling. Electron Commerce Res Appl. 2010;9(6):476–487. doi: 10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003.
    1. Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
    1. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2020.
    1. Rosseel Y. The Lavaan tutorial Ghent University (Belgium), Department of Data Analysis, 2020.
    1. Li C-H. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods. 2016;48:936–949. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7.
    1. Marôco, J. Análise de equações estruturais: fundamentos teóricos, software and aplicações. 2nd ed. Pêro Pinheiro, Portugal: Report Number; 2014.
    1. Timothy B. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. 2. New York: Guilford Press; 2015.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다