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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2021

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Research

Validation of the WHOQOL-Bref: psychometric properties and normative data for the Norwegian general population

Authors: Mary H. Kalfoss, Randi J. Reidunsdatter, Christian A. Klöckner, Marianne Nilsen

Published in: Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The World Health Organization’s Quality of Life Questionnaire (WHOQOL-Bref) is a frequently used instrument to assess the quality of life in both healthy and ill populations. Inquiries of the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-Bref report that the validity and reliability is generally satisfactory. However, some studies fail to support a four-factor dimensionality; others report poor reliability of the social and environmental domain; and there may be some challenges of supporting construct validity across age. This paper evaluates the psychometric properties of the Norwegian WHOQOL-Bref and extends previous research by testing for measurement invariance across age, gender and education level. In addition, we provide updated normative data for the Norwegian population.

Methods

We selected a random sample of the Norwegian population (n = 654) aged 18–75 years. Participants filled out the WHOQOL-Bref, the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale and various sociodemographic variables.

Results

We found an acceptable convergent and discriminate validity and internal consistency of the physical, psychological and environmental domains, but a marginal reliability was found for the social domain. The factor loadings were invariant across gender, education and age. Some items had low factor loadings and explained variance, and the model fit for the age group 60–75 years were less satisfactory.

Conclusions

The original four-factor dimensionality of the WHOQOL-Bref displayed a better fit to the data compared to the one-factor solution and is recommended for use in the Norwegian population. The WHOQOL-Bref is suitable to use across gender, education and age, but for assessment in the oldest age group, the WHOQOL-Old module could be a good supplementary, but further studies are needed.
Literature
1.
Snell DL, Siegert RJ, Surgenor LJ, Dunn JA, Hooper GJ. Evaluating quality of life outcomes following joint replacement: psychometric evaluation of a short form of the WHOQOL-Bref. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(1):51–61.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Perera HN, Izadikhah Z, O’Connor P, McIlveen P. Resolving dimensionality problems with WHOQOL-BREF item responses. Assessment. 2018;25(8):1014–25.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Krägeloh CU, Kersten P, Billington DR, Hsu PH-C, Shepherd D, Landon J, et al. Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for general use in New Zealand: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(6):1451–7.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Marengoni A, Angleman S, Melis R, Mangialasche F, Karp A, Garmen A, et al. Aging with multimorbidity: a systematic review of the literature. Ageing Res Rev. 2011;10(4):430–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Barnett K, Mercer SW, Norbury M, Watt G, Wyke S, Guthrie B. Epidemiology of multimorbidity and implications for health care, research, and medical education: a cross-sectional study. Lancet. 2012;380(9836):37–43.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hickey A, Barker M, McGee H, O’Boyle C. Measuring health-related quality of life in older patient populations: a review of current approaches. Pharmacoeconomics. 2005;23(10):971–93.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Prados-Torres A, Calderon-Larranaga A, Hancco-Saavedra J, Poblador-Plou B, van den Akker M. Multimorbidity patterns: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(3):254–66.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Coulter A, Ellins J. Effectiveness of strategies for informing, educating, and involving patients. Br Med J. 2007;335(7609):24–7.CrossRef
9.
Basch E. New frontiers in patient-reported outcomes: adverse event reporting, comparative effectiveness, and quality assessment. Annu Rev Med. 2014;65:307–17.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O’Connell KA. 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. Qual Life Res. 2004;13(2):299–310.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Fang C-T, Hsiung P-C, Yu C-F, Chen M-Y, Wang J-D. Validation of the World Health Organization quality of life instrument in patients with HIV infection. Qual Life Res. 2002;11(8):753–62.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Tengs TO, Wallace A. One thousand health-related quality-of-life estimates. Med Care. 2000;38(6):583–637.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Trompenaars FJ, Masthoff ED, Van Heck GL, Hodiamont PP, De Vries J. Content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-Bref in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(1):151–60.PubMedCrossRef
14.
15.
Skevington SM, Epton T. How will the sustainable development goals deliver changes in well-being? A systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate whether WHOQOL-BREF scores respond to change. Br Med J Glob Health. 2018;3(Suppl 1):e000609.
16.
Chan EKH. Standards and guidelines for validation practices: development and evaluation of measurement instruments. In: Zumbo BD, Chan EKH, editors. Validity and validation in social, behavioral, and health sciences. Cham: Springer; 2014. p. 9–24.
17.
Naumann VJ, Byrne GJ. WHOQOL-BREF as a measure of quality of life in older patients with depression. Int Psychogeriatr. 2004;16(2):159–73.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Taylor WJ, Myers J, Simpson RT, McPherson KM, Weatherall M. Quality of life of people with rheumatoid arthritis as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument, short form (WHOQOL-BREF): score distributions and psychometric properties. Arthritis Rheum. 2004;51(3):350–7.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Rocha NS, Fleck MP. Validity of the Brazilian version of WHOQOL-BREF in depressed patients using Rasch modelling. Rev Saude Publica. 2009;43(1):147–53.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Kalfoss MH, Isaksen AS, Thuen F, Alve S. The suitability of the World Health Organization quality of life instrument-BREF in cancer relatives. Cancer Nurs. 2008;31(1):11–22.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Yao G, Wu CH. Factorial invariance of the WHOQOL-BREF among disease groups. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(8):1881–8.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Lin CY, Li YP, Lin SI, Chen CH. Measurement equivalence across gender and education in the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling elderly Taiwanese. Int Psychogeriatr. 2016;28(8):1375–82.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Theuns P, Hofmans J, Mazaheri M, Van Acker F, Bernheim JL. Cross-national comparability of the WHOQOL-BREF: a measurement invariance approach. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(2):219–24.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Baumann C, Erpelding ML, Regat S, Collin JF, Briancon S. The WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire: French adult population norms for the physical health, psychological health and social relationship dimensions. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2010;58(1):33–9.PubMedCrossRef
25.
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(2):531–40.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Benitez-Borrego S, Guardia-Olmos J, Urzua-Morales A. Factorial structural analysis of the Spanish version of WHOQOL-BREF: an exploratory structural equation model study. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(8):2205–12.PubMedCrossRef
27.
WHO. Programme on mental health: WHOQOL user manual. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1998.
28.
Hanestad BR, Rustøen T, Knudsen Ø, Lerdal A, Wahl AK. Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire for the Norwegian general population. J Nurs Meas. 2004;12(2):147–59.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Fayers PM, Machin D. Scores and Measurements: Validity, Reliability, Sensitivity. In: Fayers PM, Machin D, editors. Quality of life. Wiltshire: Wiley; 2007.CrossRef
30.
Wang WC, Yao G, Tsai YJ, Wang JD, Hsieh CL. Validating, improving reliability, and estimating correlation of the four subscales in the WHOQOL-BREF using multidimensional Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2006;15(4):607–20.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Rocha NS, Power MJ, Bushnell DM, Fleck MP. Cross-cultural evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF domains in primary care depressed patients using Rasch analysis. Med Decis Mak. 2012;32(1):41–55.CrossRef
32.
Pomeroy IM, Tennant A, Young CA. Rasch analysis of the WHOQOL-BREF in post polio syndrome. J Rehabil Med. 2013;45(9):873–80.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Najafi M, Sheikhvatan M, Montazeri A, Sheikhfatollahi M. Factor structure of the World Health Organization’s quality of life questionnaire-BREF in patients with coronary artery disease. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4(9):1052–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Nørholm V, Bech P. The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Questionnaire: Danish validation study. Nordic J Psychiatr. 2001;55(4):229–35.CrossRef
35.
Dimitrov DM. Testing for Factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measur Eval Couns Dev. 2010;43(2):121–49.CrossRef
36.
Paskulin LM, Molzahn A. Quality of life of older adults in Canada and Brazil. West J Nurs Res. 2007;29(1):10–26 (discussion 7-35).PubMedCrossRef
37.
Jang Y, Hsieh CL, Wang YH, Wu YH. A validity study of the WHOQOL-BREF assessment in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004;85(11):1890–5.PubMedCrossRef
38.
WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med. 1998;28(3):551–8.CrossRef
39.
40.
IBM. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 24.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2016.
41.
Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide, 8th edn. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén 1998–2017.
42.
Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model Multidiscip J. 1999;6(1):1–55.CrossRef
43.
Byrne BM. A primer of LISREL: basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. 1989.
44.
Xia P, Li N, Hau KT, Liu C, Lu Y. Quality of life of Chinese urban community residents: a psychometric study of the mainland Chinese version of the WHOQOL-BREF. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:37.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
Oliveira IS, Costa LCM, Manzoni ACT, Cabral CMN. Assessment of the measurement properties of quality of life questionnaires in Brazilian women with breast cancer. Braz J Phys Therapy. 2014;18(4):372–83.CrossRef
46.
Chachamovich E, Trentini C, Fleck MP. Assessment of the psychometric performance of the WHOQOL-BREF instrument in a sample of Brazilian older adults. Int Psychogeriatr. 2007;19(4):635–46.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Hawthorne G, Herrman H, Murphy B. Interpreting the WHOQOL-Brèf: preliminary population norms and effect sizes. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77(1):37–59.CrossRef
48.
Jaracz K, Kalfoss M, Górna K, Bączyk G. Quality of life in Polish respondents: psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL-Bref. Scand J Car Sci. 2006;20(3):251–60.CrossRef
49.
O’Carroll RE, Smith K, Couston M, Cossar JA, Hayes PC. A comparison of the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-BREF in detecting change in quality of life following liver transplantation. Qual Life Res. 2000;9(1):121–4.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Marsh HW, Hau K-T, Balla JR, Grayson D. Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivar Behav Res. 1998;33(2):181–220.CrossRef
51.
Eisinga R, Grotenhuis M, Pelzer B. The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? Int J Public Health. 2013;58(4):637–42.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Izutsu T, Tsutsumi A, Islam A, Matsuo Y, Yamada HS, Kurita H, et al. Validity and reliability of the Bangla version of WHOQOL-BREF on an adolescent population in Bangladesh. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(7):1783–9.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Liang WM, Chang CH, Yeh YC, Shy HY, Chen HW, Lin MR. Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF in community-dwelling older people in Taiwan using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(5):605–18.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Fassio O, Rollero C, De Piccoli N. Health, quality of life and population density: a preliminary study on “contextualized” quality of life. Soc Indic Res. 2013;110(2):479–88.CrossRef
55.
Tayeb M. Organizations and national culture: methodology considered. Organ Stud. 1994;15(3):429–45.CrossRef
56.
Riordan CM, Vandenberg RJ. A central question in cross-cultural research: do employees of different cultures interpret work-related measures in an equivalent manner? J Manag. 1994;20(3):643–71.
57.
Power M, Quinn K, Schmidt S. Development of the WHOQOL-old module. Qual Life Res. 2005;14(10):2197–214.PubMedCrossRef
58.
Halvorsrud L, Kalfoss M, Diseth Å, Kirkevold M. Quality of life in older Norwegian adults living at home: a cross-sectional survey. J Res Nurs. 2012;17(1):12–29.CrossRef
59.
Halvorsrud L, Kirkevold M, Diseth A, Kalfoss M. Quality of life model: predictors of quality of life among sick older adults. Res Theory Nurs Pract. 2010;24(4):241.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Halvorsrud L, Kalfoss M, Diseth Å. Reliability and validity of the Norwegian WHOQOL-OLD module. Scand J Caring Sci. 2008;22(2):292–305.PubMedCrossRef
61.
Bowling A, Ebrahim S. Handbook of health research methods: investigation, measurement and analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2005.
62.
Chien C-W, Wang J-D, Yao G, Hsueh I-P, Hsieh C-L. Agreement between the WHOQOL-BREF Chinese and Taiwanese versions in the elderly. J Formos Med Assoc. 2009;108(2):164–9.PubMedCrossRef
63.
Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods. 2002;7(2):147–77.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Validation of the WHOQOL-Bref: psychometric properties and normative data for the Norwegian general population
Authors
Mary H. Kalfoss
Randi J. Reidunsdatter
Christian A. Klöckner
Marianne Nilsen
Publication date
01-12-2021
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7525
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01656-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 1/2021 Go to the issue

Research

Phenotypes of adults with congenital heart disease around the globe: a cluster analysis

Research

Development and validation of behavioral intention measures of an E-vapor product: intention to try, use, dual use, and switch

Research

Health-related quality of life in men and women who experienced cardiovascular diseases: Tehran Lipid and Glucose Study

Research

Maternal tobacco exposure and health-related quality of life during pregnancy: a national-based study of pregnant women in China

Research

Content validation of the Well-being of Older People measure (WOOP)

Research

The role of antimicrobial resistance on long-term mortality and quality of life in critically ill patients: a prospective longitudinal 2-year study