Comparison of the Moorehead‐Ardelt quality of life questionnaire and the BODY‐Q in Danish patients undergoing weight loss and body contouring surgery

Abstract

Summary This study compared the measurement properties of the Moorehead‐Ardelt quality of life questionnaire‐II (MAQOL‐II) and the BODY‐Q, to determine which was more suitable for measuring patient‐reported outcome (PRO) in Danish bariatric surgery (BS) and body contouring surgery (BC) patients. We examined content validity against the COSMIN guidelines and compared psychometric performance using Rasch measurement theory methods and criteria. MAQOL‐II data were obtained from the Danish Bariatric Surgery Database from September 2010 to November 2017, and BODY‐Q data were collected from June 2015 to March 2018. The MAQOL‐II failed to meet recommended standards for content validity, while all criteria were met for the BODY‐Q. A total of 16 965 MAQOL‐II and 2259 BODY‐Q assessments were obtained. A random sample was selected from the MAQOL‐II dataset to match the BODY‐Q sample. Psychometrically, the BODY‐Q performed better than the MAQOL‐II. For example, Cronbach's α was 0.82 for the MAQOL‐II vs ≥0.90 for all BODY‐Q scales. Fifty percent (3/6) of MAQOL‐II items had disordered thresholds, while all BODY‐Q items had ordered thresholds (123/123). Poor item fit was revealed for 17% (1/6) of MAQOL‐II and 8% (10/123) of BODY‐Q items. For scale reliability, person separation index was 0.79 for the MAQOL‐II and 0.88 (0.81‐0.93) for the BODY‐Q. In conclusion, the MAQOL‐II does not meet today's standards for a rigorously developed PRO measure. The BODY‐Q, on the other hand, gives substantial, accurate and interpretable measurement and should be recommended for use in PRO in BS and BC patients.

Validation of the Brazilian-Portuguese version of Moorehead-Ardelt Quality of Life - II among patients with severe obesity

“…On the other hand, the multidimensional concept of HRQoL [6] might not be fully captured by the six-item MA-II [12]. Some item wordings and image cues might require adjustment as we remarked [28,29]. Regarding the capacity of the MA-II to capture HRQoL, the magnitude of the ceiling effect of the total score in our study is in line with the previous estimate of 2% in the Portuguese version [12].…”

“…Globally, MA-II is an easy HRQoL tool to understand and apply [27]. In most non-English adaptations, the internal consistency of the questionnaire was good or satisfactory [13,28,9,10,11,12,29], ranging from 0.72 to 0.88. Therefore, our coe cient of internal consistency of 0.70 was acceptable when compared with different linguistic versions of the MA-II.…”

The long-term effect of body contouring procedures on the quality of life in morbidly obese patients after bariatric surgery

“…The versatility and precision of this instrument was reported later by Poulsen et al who compared BODY-Q with Moorehead-Ardelt quality of life questionnaire-II (MAQOL-II) proving MAQOL-II hat does not meet today's standards for a rigorously developed PRO measure. [38] The strength of this study was using a worldwide approved validated questionnaire, longterm follow up (up to 12 months), and a high response rate of 86%. In contrast to previously published BODY-Q questionnaire-related studies, which are cross-sectional and lack longitudinal assessment, the survey was administered to our patient population 24 hours before, six, and twelve months after their body contouring procedure.…”

The impact of body mass index (BMI) on satisfaction with work life: An international BODY‐Q study

“…Recruitment took place between December 2019 and January 2020 and was based on the Danish BODY‐Q database including patients pre‐ and post‐BS who were currently, or had earlier been, in a treatment course at a Danish hospital. These patients have previously filled out the BODY‐Q and thereby contributed data for earlier studies on bariatric patients 32,33 . The patients included in the database who consented to be contacted again were sent the new BODY‐Q scales for testing.…”

“…These patients have previously filled out the BODY-Q and thereby contributed data for earlier studies on bariatric patients. 32,33 The patients included in the database who consented to be contacted again were sent the new BODY-Q scales for testing. Up to three reminder emails were sent to nonrespondents.…”