Quality of life in Polish respondents: psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL – Bref

Jaracz, Krystyna; Kalfoss, Mary; Górna, Krystyna; Bączyk, Grażyna

doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2006.00401.x

Cited by 159 publications

(152 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

129

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the social domain exhibited lower reliability in both samples. Similar patterns were noted in international WHOQOL Group findings, and other studies of middle-aged and older adults (Chachamovich et al 2006;Hanestad et al 2004;Hawthorne et al 2006;Jang et al 2004;Jaracz et al 2006Trompenaars et al 2005). Lower alpha values for the social domain may be partly due to the limited number of unrelated items in this domain (Yao et al 2002).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…In a study of 1,200 Chinese older adults aged 65-103, Hwang et al (2003) achieved marginal fit by allowing error in measurement errors for items from the physical domain and environmental domains (pain and medical treatment, mobility and leisurely activities, social care and transport) to covary and two cross-loadings (self esteem on social relationships and energy on psychological). Jaracz et al (2006) reported a marginal fit among 908 Polish healthy and sick respondents with a mean age of 35 (range = 18-85) and lack of fit was noted by Von Steinbuchel et al (2006) in their study of 192 Swiss older adults (M = 73.4 years; range = 60-90), and Leung et al (2005) among healthy and sick respondents aged 19-91 (n = 301; M = 52.8 years) in Hong Kong. Among psychotic adults (aged 18-60 years) in Nigeria, Ohaeri et al (2004) found a lack of empirical support for the four domain BREF measurement model.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Both international (Skevington et al 2004;WHOQOL Group 1998a, b) and national studies have confirmed or partially confirmed the validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF in younger and middle-aged populations (Amir et al 1999;De Girolamo et al 2000;Fang et al 2002;Fleck et al 2000;Hanestad et al 2004;Hsiung et al 2005;Hwang et al 2003;Jang et al 2004;Jaracz et al 2006;Kalfoss et al 2008;Leplege et al 2000;Leung et al 2005;Lin et al 2002;Min et al 2002;Norholm and Bech 2001;O'Carroll et al 2000;Ohaeri et al 2004;Taylor et al 2004;Saxena et al 1998;Trompenaars et al 2005;Yao et al 2002). To our knowledge, only five studies have specifically examined the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF among older adults.…”

Section: Whoqol Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The suitability of the WHOQOL–BREF for Canadian and Norwegian older adults

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to examine the validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF, a generic quality of life scale, among older people in Canada and Norway. Very similar data from the Canadian and Norwegian Field Trial data (Canada n = 192; Norway, n = 469) were analyzed and compared. Higher negatively skewed mean scores were found for all WHOQOL-BREF domains in Canada. For both study samples, missing values were highest for the sex item from the social domain. Ceiling effects were found (Canada n = 21; Norway n = 11) primarily among items in the physical and environmental domains. In both study samples, a multitrait multimethod procedure indicated items correlated most strongly with their parent domains; however, equally appreciable correlations were observed between physical, psychological, and environmental items (r = 0.33-0.64; p \ 0.01). The social domain had the lowest internal consistency (a = 0.67 Canada, a = 0.55 Norway). Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) yielded marginal goodness-of-fit between the hypothesized WHOQOL-BREF measurement model and the sample data as well as differing patterns of domain misspecification. Patterns of correlations (p \ 0.01) of WHOQOL-BREF domains with WHOQOL-OLD facets, a global QOL item, the SF-12, and the geriatric depression scale provided evidence of convergent and divergent validity. Domain scores also significantly discriminated between health and unhealthy populations and presence of morbidity. Empirical support was found, in part, for the construct validity of the WHOQOL-BREF in older adults. Despite some different patterns found in the CFA, possibly due to cultural or sampling differences, it appears that the instrument is reliable, valid, and facilitates cross-cultural comparisons.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Whoqol Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The suitability of the WHOQOL–BREF for Canadian and Norwegian older adults

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The weak criterion-related and convergent validity at the item level were also found in previous studies [9,24], possibly because the subjects' overall QOL or health status involve multiple factors (e.g., physical, psychological, and environmental factors), whereas each individual item relates to a certain narrow QOL facet. In addition, this study had a substantial sample size for the CFA operation (more than 200 subjects) according to suggestions from previous studies [25,26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 87%

Development and validation of a WHOQOL-BREF Taiwanese audio player-assisted interview version for the elderly who use a spoken dialect

et al. 2007

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A quality of life questionnaire is rarely adapted to an interview mode for people who mainly use spoken language in daily life. In Taiwan, the WHOQOL-BREF (Mandarin Chinese version) has been developed, as a self-administered questionnaire, but it cannot be applied to the majority of the elderly in Taiwan, who speak only Taiwanese (a dialect). This study adopted the audio player-assisted interview mode to develop a Taiwanese version of the WHOQOL-BREF specifically for Taiwanese-speaking elderly people, and followed with examinations of the reliability and validity of this version. Initially, the WHOQOL-BREF (English version) was translated into colloquial Taiwanese, and field tests confirmed the equivalence and appropriateness of the translation. A total of 228 Taiwanese-speaking elderly people were assessed using the Taiwanese interview version, of which 144 subjects were re-assessed two weeks later. Interviewers assessed each subject aided by an audio player on which all the translated WHO-QOL-BREF contents were recorded. The Taiwanese interview version of the WHOQOL-BREF, except for the item related to dependence on medication, showed acceptable reliability (internal consistency, corrected item-domain correlation, and test-retest reliability) and validity (criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the four-factor model of the Taiwanese interview version, providing evidence for construct validity. The results suggest that the Taiwanese audio player-assisted interview version of the WHOQOL-BREF was reliable and valid in assessing quality of life of elderly Taiwanese.

show abstract

“…Quanto a sua dimensionalidade, nove estudos utilizaram a abordagem confirmatória para avaliar a estrutura dimensional de 24 itens distribuídos em quatro domínios, excluindo os dois itens da faceta geral ("qualidade de vida" e "saú-de") 17,18,19,21,22,23,24,25,26,27 . Porém, pelo menos um índice de ajuste não foi adequado -comparative fit index (CFI) < 0,90 17,18,21,22,23,25,27 e root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) > 0,08 26,27 , ou o modelo final indicou seis 6,22 ao invés de quatro fatores (Tabela 2).…”

Section: Introductionunclassified