Advertisement

PharmacoEconomics

, Volume 7, Issue 1, pp 39–48 | Cite as

Operational Aspects of Quality-of-Life Assessment

Choosing the Right Instrument
  • Pennifer Erickson
  • Richard C. Taeuber
  • Jeffrey Scott
Review Article Choosing the Right Quality-of-Life Instrument

Summary

In assessing quality of life, the most important goal is to develop a strategy that produces useable and useful information for decision making. Assessment design is complex, and whether an assessment is developed from scratch, or 1 or more portions of existing instruments are adapted, the focus must be on the quality of the theoretical and operational elements of the particular line of inquiry and its environment.

The necessary and most often discussed focus on the theoretical dimensions of validity, reliability and responsiveness is not sufficient to insure that the data are of the requisite high quality. There is also a need, almost universally given little attention in the literature, to look at operational aspects, such as design, format, flow, appearance, and response-stimulus, of each assessment instrument. Searching for guidance in the quality-of-life (QOL) literature remains a challenge even with computers, modems, keywords, static guidebooks and bibliographic systems.

The On-Line Guide to Quality-of-Life Assessments (OLGA) is presented as a personal computer-based system that is updated 3 times a year to provide QOL researchers and assessment developers with 2 databases: assessments providing full descriptions and contact information; and references providing fully keyed citations to the assessment use literature. These databases are made more useful by decision-logical programs that identify relevant assessments and supporting research literature.

OLGA can thus save time and other resources by helping investigators concentrate on the most relevant elements of the existing literature. This focus will assist them in avoiding the problems of ending up with the right answers to the wrong questions.

Keywords

Adis International Limited Assessment Strategy Assessment Design Quality Oflife Chronic Respiratory Disease Questionnaire 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Garrett JW, Drossman DA, Patrick DL. InfIammatory bowel disease. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life assessments inclinical trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990: 367–79Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Deyo RA, Cherkin D, Conrad D. The back pain outcome assessment team. Health Serv Res 1990; 25 (5): 733–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wennberg JE. On the status of the prostate disease assessment team. Health Serv Res 1990; 25 (5): 727–31Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pashos CL, Mcneil BJ. Consequences ofvariation in treatment for acute myocardial infarction. Health Serv Res 1990; 25 (5): 718–22Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Erickson P, Scott J. The On—Line Guide to Quality—of—Life Assessment (OLGA): resource for selecting quality of life assessments.In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, editors. Quality of lifeassessment: key issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993: 221–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Erickson P. Bibliography on health indexes. HyattsvilIe, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 1973–1993Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease—specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27 (3 Suppl.): S217–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    WHO. Constitution of the World Health Organization. Basic Documents. Geneva: WHO, 1948Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Meenan RE. The AIMS approach to health status measurement: conceptual background and measurement properties. J Rheumatol 1982; 9: 785–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guyatt GH, Berman LB, Townsend M, et al. A measure ofquality of life for clinical trials in chronic lung disease. Thorax 1987; 42: 773–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bergner M. Quality of life, health status, and clinical research. Med Care 1989; 27 (3 Suppl.): S148–56Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health status and health policy: quality of life in health care evaluation and resource allocation. NewYork: Oxford University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGrawHill, 1993Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types ofvalidity and the Index of Well—being. Health Serv Res 1976; 11 (4): 478–507PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40 (2): 171–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19 (8): 787–805PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bindman AB, Keane D, Lurie N. Measuring health changes among severely ilI patients: the fIoor phenomenon. Med Care 1990; 28: 1142–52PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Patrick DL, Sittampalam Y, Somerville S, et al. A crosscultural comparison ofhealth status values. Am J Public Health 1985; 75 (12): 1402–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, et al. Cross cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991; 19: 33–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hadorn DC, Hays RD. Multitrait—multimethod analysis of health—related quality of life measures. Med Care 1991; 29 (9): 829–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Payne SL. The art of asking questions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dillman DA. Mail and telephone surveys: the total design method. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1978Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Warwick DP, Lininger CA. The sample survey: theory and practice. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company, 1975: 126–71Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and welI—being of patients with chronic conditions: results fromthe MedicaI Outcomes Study. JAMA 1989; 262 (7): 907–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, Ahmedzai S. A modular approach to quality—of—life assessment. Recent Results Cancer Res 1988; 111: 231–49PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Health Outcomes Institute. Type Specification. Bloomington, MN: Health Outcomes Institute, 1993Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mcoowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Frank-Stromborg M, editor. Instruments for clinical nursing research. Norwalk, CT: Appleton and Lange, 1988Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bech P. Health—related quality of life. Ann Med 1993; 25: 103-4Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Bergner M, Rothman M. Health status measures: an overview and guide for selection. Annu Rev Public Health 1987; 8: 191–210PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ware JE. Methodological considerations in the selection of health status assessment procedures. In: Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CO, et al., editors. Assessment of quality of lifein clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York: Lelacq Publishing, 1984: 87–117Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Erickson P, Patrick OL. Guidelines for selecting quality of life assessment: methodological and practical considerations. Drug Ther Res 1988; 13 (5): 159–63Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Barofsky I, Cohen SJ, Sugarbaker PH. Selecting a quality oflife assessment: standardized tests, clinical assessments, or custom–designed instruments. In: Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, et al., editors. Assessment of quality of life inclinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York: Le lacqPublishing, 1984: 239–49Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Cella OF, Tulsky OS. Quality of life in cancer: definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Invest 1993; 11 (3): 327–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pennifer Erickson
    • 1
  • Richard C. Taeuber
    • 1
  • Jeffrey Scott
    • 1
  1. 1.The On-Line Guide to Quality-of-Life Assessment (OLGA)KensingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations