Screening for health-related quality of life in children and adolescents: Optimal cut points for the KIDSCREEN-10 for epidemiological studies
Generic measures of health-related quality of life are important in pediatrics. Here, we try to establish optimal cut points for the self-report and parental-report versions of the KIDSCREEN-10.
We re-analyzed data from the German Health Interview and Examination Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS) study. In total, data from 2566 children, 2136 younger adolescents, and 2740 older adolescents were used. The KIDSCREEN-10 was contrasted to three different anchors: the strength and difficulties questionnaire, self-rated general health, and chronic diseases. A kernel-based method and bootstrapping were used to determine the optimal cut points and their variability.
We found large differences in HRQoL between children with vs. without mental health problems but there is only medium-to-small differences in HRQoL between children with vs. without chronic diseases and children with self-rated good vs. poor physical health. Acceptable levels of classification accuracy were found in relation to mental health problems for all versions (AUCs between 0.77 and 0.79), but only for the parental-report version in relation to general health and for no version in relation to chronic diseases. Cut points identified as optimal differed systematically between parental-report versions (cut point = 41.13) and self-report for younger (cut point = 42.52) and older adolescents (cut point = 40.29).
The results aid the interpretation of KIDSCREEN-10 in epidemiological studies. Specifically, we suggest a cut point of 41 should be used to interpret the parental-report version of the KIDSCREEN and 40 and 42, respectively, for young and older adolescents.
KeywordsHealth-related quality of life Diagnostic utility Optimal cut points, boostrapping
The following data were used in this study: Public Use File KiGGS, German Health Survey for Children and Adolescents, 2003–2006, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany, 2008.
The study was supported by the German Federal ministry for Education and Research (BMBF #01EK1501).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human and animal participants
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 8.Erhart M, Ravens-Sieberer U (2006) Health-related quality of life instruments and individual diagnosis—A new area of application. GMS Psycho-Social Medicine, 3. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2736504.Google Scholar
- 9.Serra-Sutton, V., Ferrer, M., Rajmil, L., Tebé, C., Simeoni, M.-C., & Ravens-Sieberer, U. (2009). Population norms and cut-off-points for suboptimal health related quality of life in two generic measures for adolescents: The Spanish VSP-A and KINDL-R. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 7(1), 35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 10.Ravens-Sieberer, U., Herdman, M., Devine, J., Otto, C., Bullinger, M., Rose, M., et al. (2014). The European KIDSCREEN approach to measure quality of life and well-being in children: Development, current application, and future advances. Quality of Life Research, 23(3), 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0428-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Ravens-Sieberer, U., Auquier, P., Erhart, M., Gosch, A., Rajmil, L., Bruil, J., et al. (2007). The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: Psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Quality of Life Research, 16(8), 1347–1356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9240-2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 13.Ravens-Sieberer, U., Erhart, M., Rajmil, L., Herdman, M., Auquier, P., Bruil, J., et al. (2010). Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: A short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 19(10), 1487–1500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9706-5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Matos, M. G. D., Gaspar, T., & Simões, C. (2012). Health-related quality of life in Portuguese children and adolescents. Psicologia, 25(2), 230–237.Google Scholar
- 21.Robert Koch Institute, Department of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring (2015) The German Health Survey for Children and Adolescents (KiGGS Wave 1). Public Use File first version, RKI Robert Koch Institute Doi: 10.7797/15-200912-1-1-1.Google Scholar
- 22.The KIDSCREEN Group Europe. (2006). The KIDSCREEN questionnaires—Quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents. Handbook. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publisher.Google Scholar
- 26.Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging predictors. Machine Learning, 24, 123–140.Google Scholar
- 27.Thiele C (2018) Cutpointr: Determine and evaluate optimal cutpoints in binary classification tasks. Retrieved from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=cutpointr.Google Scholar
- 28.Hosmer, D. W., Lemeshow, S., & Sturdivant, R. X. (2013). Applied logistic regression (Vol. 398). John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- 30.Varni, J. W., Limbers, C. A., & Burwinkle, T. M. (2007). How young can children reliably and validly self-report their health-related quality of life?: An analysis of 8591 children across age subgroups with the PedsQLTM 4.0 Generic Core Scales. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar