Intervals between response choices on a single-item measure of quality of life

Abstract

BackgroundA single overall rating of quality of life (QoL) is a sensitive method that is often used in population surveys. However, the exact meaning of response choices is unclear. In particular, uneven spacing may affect the way QoL ratings should be analyzed and interpreted. This study aimed to determine the intervals between response choices to a single-item QoL assessment.MethodsA secondary analysis was conducted on data from the Lc65+ cohort study and two additional, population-based, stratified random samples of older people (N = 5,300). Overall QoL was rated as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor. A QoL score (range 0–100) was derived from participants’ answers to a 28-item QoL assessment tool. A transformed QoL score ranging from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) was calculated. The same procedure was repeated to compute seven domain-specific QoL subscores (Feeling of safety; Health and mobility; Autonomy; Close entourage; Material resources; Esteem and recognition; Social and cultural life).ResultsMean (95 % confidence intervals) QoL scores were 96.23 (95.81–96.65) for excellent, 93.09 (92.74–93.45) for very good, 81.45 (80.63–82.27) for good, 65.44 (62.67–68.20) for fair and 54.52 (45.31–63.73) for poor overall QoL, corresponding to transformed QoL scores of respectively 5.00, 4.70, 3.58, 2.05, and 1.00. Ordinality of the categories excellent to poor was preserved in all seven QoL subscores.ConclusionsThe excellent-to-poor rating scale provides an ordinal measure of overall QoL. The intervals between response choices are unequal, but an interval scale can be obtained after adequate recoding of excellent, very good, good, fair and poor.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0443-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Can United States Adults Accurately Assess Their Diet Quality?

“…To match perceived DQ with measured DQ, qualitative ratings were assigned to total HEI-2015 scores based on the US 10-point grading scale as follows: 90-100 = A, 80-89 = B, 70-79 = C, 60-69 = D, and 0-59 = F. 19 Although perceived DQ and measured DQ both have five categories, descriptive ratings for the grading scale are not exact matches for the perceived DQ responses (Table 1). Hence, the rating assignments were a mix of the 10-point US grading system and quality of life measures (qualitative ratings compared to mean scores) reported by Henchoz and colleagues 20 (Table 1). Both systems were used to allow for overlapping, less restrictive matching between perceived and measured DQ.…”

A Survey on One Health Approach in Colombia and Some Latin American Countries: From a Fragmented Health Organization to an Integrated Health Response to Global Challenges

“…In section 5, respondents were asked to evaluate the implementation of the OH approach by the professionals scoring from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent); to describe formal initiatives to establish intersectoral collaboration; to give their “top 3” environmental, animal health, or public health problems in the last 5 years in their country; to name three institutions responsible for OH in their country; and finally, the level of knowledge about OH of the country inhabitants scoring from 1 (poor) to 4 (excellent). The scoring and type of scale made it possible to transfer the results from a qualitative approach to a quantitative one by giving a score to each answer ( 18 , 19 ). We present the results using box-plots, to illustrate the median score (plus IQR and min/max) attributed by respondents.…”