Transcultural adaptation and psychometric properties of the Korean version of the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41)
We translated and adapted transculturally the Quality of Life Questionnaire of the European Foundation for Osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41) for Korean patients. The translated Korean version of QUALEFFO-41 showed satisfactory reliability and validity.
The aim of this study was to translate the QUALEFFO-41 for Korean patients and then validate the Korean version of QUALEFFO-41.
Translation and transcultural adaptation of the QUALEFFO-41 was conducted according to the international recommendations. Ninety-seven patients (mean age, 73.6 years) with osteoporosis were participated in validating the Korean version of QUALEFFO-41. To test reliability, internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. To test validity, convergent validity was assessed using correlation with the SF-12 and EQ-5D and discriminant validity was assessed using ROC curve analysis.
The English version of QUALEFFO-41 was translated and adapted to Korean without notable discrepancies. The Korean QUALEFFO-41 had good reliability with Cronbach’s alpha ranging from 0.733 to 0.942. QUALEFFO-41 had good correlations to SF-12 and EQ-5D. Compared with subjects without history of vertebral fracture (VF), those with history of VF showed significantly worse scores according to QUALEFFO-41, but not according to SF-12 or EQ-5D. ROC curve analysis revealed that the physical function domain of QUALEFFO-41 had significant ability to discriminate between subjects with and without history of VF, while SF-12 or EQ-5D did not.
The Korean version of QUALEFFO-41 demonstrated relevant internal consistency, convergent validity, and discriminant validity, which can be recommended to evaluate quality of life in Koreans.
KeywordsOsteoporosis Quality of life Validation QUALEFFO-41 Korean
We appreciate SR Kim for contributing to this study.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
- 1.Gallagher J, Riggs B, Eisman J (1994) Diagnosis, prophylaxis, and treatment of osteoporosis. Am J Med 90:646–650Google Scholar
- 13.Lips P, Cooper C, Agnusdei D, Caulin F, Egger P, Johnell O, Kanis J, Liberman U, Minne H, Reeve J (1997) Quality of life as outcome in the treatment of osteoporosis: the development of a questionnaire for quality of life by the European Foundation for Osteoporosis. Osteoporos Int 7:36–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Cooper C, Jakob F, Chinn C, Martin-Mola E, Fardellone P, Adami S, Thalassinos N, Melo-Gomes J, Torgerson D, Gibson A (2008) Fracture incidence and changes in quality of life in women with an inadequate clinical outcome from osteoporosis therapy: the Observational Study of Severe Osteoporosis (OSSO). Osteoporos Int 19:493–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kind P (1996) The EuroQoL instrument: an index of health- related quality of life. In: Spilker B (ed.). Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials 2:191–201Google Scholar
- 28.Xie F, Thumboo J, Lo N-N, Yeo S-J, Yang K-Y, Yeo W, Chong H-C, Fong K-Y, Li S-C (2007) Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of Singapore English and Chinese versions of the Lequesne Algofunctional Index of knee in Asians with knee osteoarthritis in Singapore. Osteoarthr Cartil 15:19–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.de Oliveira Ferreira N, Arthuso M, Da Silva RB, Pinto-Neto AM, Costa-Paiva L (2013) Validation of the Portuguese version of the quality of life questionnaire of the European foundation for osteoporosis (QUALEFFO-41) in Brazilian women with postmenopausal osteoporosis with vertebral fracture. Clin Rheumatol 32:1585–1592CrossRefGoogle Scholar