Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 5/2012

Open Access 01-06-2012

Psychometric properties of the Chinese quality of life instrument (HK version) in Chinese and Western medicine primary care settings

Authors: Wendy Wong, Cindy Lo Kuen Lam, Kwok Fai Leung, Li Zhao

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 5/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Chinese Quality of Life Measure (ChQOL) had only been validated on a small number of selected subjects in Hong Kong and had never been tested in the Western medicine (WM) primary care setting.

Aims and objectives

To test the psychometrics properties of ChQOL(HK version) in both TCM and WM general outpatient clinics.

Methods

Three samples of Chinese adult patients [(1) 569 consulting TCM clinics for episodic illnesses; (2) 524 consulting WM clinics for episodic illnesses; (3) 205 consulting WM clinics for chronic disease follow-up] in Hong Kong were invited to complete the ChQOL(HK version) and the SF-36 Health Survey during their consultations and 2 weeks after consultations. The scaling assumptions, factor structure, convergent construct validity, reliability, responsiveness, and discriminatory power of the ChQOL were evaluated.

Results

Majority of items satisfied the scaling assumptions. A two instead of 3-factor structure was found with physical form and emotion facets loading on one factor. Convergent construct validity was confirmed with moderate correlations with SF-36 scores. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were satisfactory. The ChQOL(HK version) was able to detect significant improvements 2 weeks after consultations, and it was able to discriminate between groups with different illness severity, age, and sex.

Conclusion

The ChQOL(HK version) was shown to have satisfactory validity, reliability, discriminatory power, and responsiveness in both TCM and Western medicine primary care settings. The validity of the 3-domain scaling structure needs further evaluation.
Literature
1.
Fitzpatrick, R., Fletcher, A., Gore, S., Jones, D., Spiegelhalter, D., et al. (1992). Quality of life measures in health care. I: application and issues in assessment. British Medical Journal, 305, 1074–1077.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Leung, K. F., Liu, F. B., Zhao, L., Fang, J. Q., Chan, K., et al. (2005). Development and validation of the Chinese quality of life instrument. Health and quality of life Outcomes, 3, 26.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Wong, W., Lam, C. L. K., Leung, K. F., & Zhao, L. (2009). Is the content of the Chinese quality of life instrument (ChQOL) really valid in the context of traditional Chinese medicine in Hong Kong? Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 17(1), 29–36.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zhao, L., Leung, K. F., & Chan, K. (2007). The Chinese quality of life instrument: Reliability and validity of the Hong Kong Chinese version (ChQOL-HK). The Hong Kong Practitioner, 29, 220–232.
5.
Giovanni, A., Flavio, F., Maria, G. V., & Andrea, W. (2010). The ChQoL questionnaire: An Italian translation with preliminary psychometric results for female oncological patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 8, 106–133.CrossRef
6.
Leung, G. M., Wong, I. O. L., Chan, W. S., Choi, S., & Lo, S. V. (2005). The ecology of health care in Hong Kong. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 577–590.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Busato, A., Donges, A., Herren, S., Widmer, M., & Marian, F. (2006). Health status and health care utilisation of patients in complementary and conventional primary care in Switzerland—An observational study. Family Practice, 23, 116–124.PubMedCrossRef
8.
9.
Kazis, L. E., Anderson, J. J., & Meenan, R. F. (1989). Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Medical Care, 27(3, suppl), S178–S189.
10.
Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., et al. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 14, 285–295.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Cowling, B. J. (2005). Errors, power & sample size. Department of Community Medicine, University of Hong Kong.
12.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
13.
Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., & Kosinski, M. (1995). SF-36 health survey, manual & interpretation guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute.
14.
Lam, C. L. K., Gandek, B., Ren, X. S., & Chan, M. S. (1998). Test of scaling assumptions and construct validity of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 Health Survey. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1139–1147.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Lam, C. L. K., Launder, I. J., Lam, T. P., & Gandek, B. (1999). Population based norming of the Chinese (HK) version of the SF-36 health survey. The Hong Kong Practitioner, 21, 460–470.
16.
Jaescheke, R. J., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415.CrossRef
17.
Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(1), 139–144.PubMed
18.
McHorney, C. A., & Tarlov, A. R. (1995). Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Quality of Life Research, 4, 293–307.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Ware, J. E., Keller, S. D., Gandek, B., Brazier, J. E., & Sullivan, M. (1995). Evaluting translations of health status questionnaires: Methods from the IQOLA Project. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 11, 525–551.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Ware, J. E., & Barbara, G. (1998). Methods for testing data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability: The IQOLA project approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 945–952.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.CrossRef
22.
Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D., & De Boer, M. R. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60, 34–42.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlation uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 20–428.CrossRef
24.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral science (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
25.
Lam, C. L. K., & Lauder, I. J. (2000). The impact of chronic diseases on the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of Chinese patients in primary care. Family Practice, 17(2), 159–166.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Howard, K. I., & Forehand, G. G. (1962). A method for correcting error total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Education Psychology Measurement, 22(4), 731–735.CrossRef
27.
Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychology, 140, 5–55.
28.
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150.PubMed
29.
30.
Carmines, E. G., & Zeller, R. A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment (pp. 20–28). CA: Beverly Hills.
31.
32.
Marz, R. G., Menezes, A., Horovitz, L., Jones, E. C., & Warren, R. F. (2003). A comparison of two time intervals for test-retest reliability of health status instruments. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56, 730–735.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Psychometric properties of the Chinese quality of life instrument (HK version) in Chinese and Western medicine primary care settings
Authors
Wendy Wong
Cindy Lo Kuen Lam
Kwok Fai Leung
Li Zhao
Publication date
01-06-2012
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 5/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9987-3

Other articles of this Issue 5/2012

Quality of Life Research 5/2012 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Coping and emotional distress during acute hospitalization in older persons with earlier trauma: the case of Holocaust survivors

Review

The effectiveness of psychosocial interventions designed to improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) amongst asthmatic children and their families: a systematic review

Erratum

Erratum to: Bodyweight, gender, and quality of life: a population-based longitudinal study

OriginalPaper

Symptom assessment in ambulatory oncology: initial validation of the nurse-developed Modified Ambulatory Care Flow Sheet (MACFS)

OriginalPaper

Capabilities and quality of life in Dutch psycho-geriatric nursing homes: an exploratory study using a proxy version of the ICECAP-O

OriginalPaper

Common tongue conditions affect quality of life: an issue to be recognized