Reliability and Validity of the Thai “Global Person Generated Index”, an Individualised Measure of Quality of Life

Abstract

The "Global Person Generated Index" (GPGI) is an individualised measure of global quality of life (QoL). Individualised measures have been used within a health context, however until recently have been rarely used to explore global QoL. This paper establishes the GPGI's validity and reliability in Thailand. Data were collected from participants in two sites in Northeast Thailand. Participants completed the Thai GPGI, the "Satisfaction with Life Scale"(SWLS), a modified "Positive and Negative Affect Scale" (PANAS) and provided demographic data. 81 participants provided data at T1. 70 participants completed data for test-retest (two week interval) reliability comparisons. Test-retest reliability correlation was 0.678 (p<0.001) for participants reporting no change in QoL. GPGI correlated moderately with SWLS (0.381, p<0.01) and PANAS scales (0.291 and −0.378, both p<0.01), indicating validity. GPGI scores were related to health and correlated to a moderate degree with income (0.379, p<0.05). GPGI scores did not show the expected differences in scores based on gender, although this may be owing to cultural issues. Areas

Evaluation of thePatient Generated Indexas a measure of quality-of-life in people with severe traumatic brain injury

“…In line with previous research [14,15,18,20,21], the validity of the PGI was assessed by examining its association with: (1) the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) [22], a measure of life satisfaction used extensively with the TBI population; (2) the Community Integration Questionnaire (CIQ) [23]; and (3) the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale [24]. In accordance with previous research [8,15], a moderate positive correlation was predicted between the PGI and the SWLS as they measure overlapping but not identical constructs. It was further hypothesized that those who reported higher community integration, as measured by the CIQ, would report higher QoL.…”

“…Evidence of the criterion-related validity of the PGI was shown by a modest correlation between the PGI and the SWLS. Based on previous research [8,15], a high correlation was not expected, as the two measures quantify overlapping but not identical constructs (quality-of-life and satisfaction-with-life, respectively). Results also indicated that those reporting higher levels of home competence, productive activity and overall community integration reported higher subjective QoL.…”

“…Individualized or subjective approaches to the assessment of QoL are predicated on the belief that only the individual living a particular life experience is able to accurately judge its quality. Advantages of individualized or subjective measures have been articulated and include: less response 'noise' via the removal of ratings on items that possess limited relevance [8]; the provision of autonomy to participants [9]; and recognition of 'response shift' (i.e. variations over time in participants' conceptualization of QoL) [10].…”

Perceptions of Links Between Quality of Life Areas: Implications for Measurement and Practice

“…Although the GPGI seems to access people's perceptions of their needs and resources in relation to their QoL, it is not simply measuring the amount of either, but the degree to which the reality of the situation matches the person's ideal (Calman 1984;Martin et al 2010). What the GPGI then appears to be capturing with these links between life areas is how different needs and resources can have a complex inter-relationship, for example with the links between ''house'' and ''health'' showing that perhaps people require their homes to live a healthy, safe, secure life or that perhaps health, by allowing people to work, has allowed them to afford to live in their home.…”

Women as agents of wellbeing in Northern Ireland’s fishing households

“…(Serra 2011) emphasises the need to consider the context within which these social relations operate and the role of status and power when it comes to negotiating needs. Generally, discussions with respondents pointed to the need to maintain family ties and improve quality time as a family to protect the perceived quality of life (Martin et al 2010). Another aspect to consider is that family and close relationships are areas of life that people often do not feel comfortable openly complaining about.…”