Advertisement

Ensuring International Equivalence of Quality of Life Measures: Problems and Approaches to Solutions

  • M. Bullinger

Summary

Equivalence of international versions of a quality of life measure is vital to its use in research. Along the lines of an approach proposed in cross-cultural psychology, the functional, scale, operational and metric equivalence criteria are outlined and elaborated using translation and testing of the SF-36 as an example. The problems faced in examining and meeting these criteria, as well as possible procedural solutions, are discussed.

Keywords

Life Measure Nottingham Health Profile Original Instrument International Equivalence Convergent Validity Testing 
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. Aaronson N, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, Crabeels D, Estapè J, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Frick U, Hürny C, Kaasa S, Klee M, Mastilicia M, Osoba D, Pfausler B, Razavi D, Rofe P, Schraub S, Sullivan M, Thkeda F (1991) The EORTC Core quality of life questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba D (ed) Effect of cancer on quality of life. CRC Press, Vancouver, pp 136–154Google Scholar
  2. Aaronson, N, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M, Bungay K, Fukuhara S, Gandek B, Keller S, Razavi D, Sanson-Fisher R, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Wagner A, Ware J (1992) International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality Life Res 1: 349–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bullinger M (1991) Quality of life-definition, conceptualization and implications – a methodologist’s view. Theoretical Surg 6: 143–148Google Scholar
  4. Bullinger M (1994) German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 – preliminary results from the IQOLA Project. Social Sci Med, in pressGoogle Scholar
  5. Bullinger M, Hasford J (1991) Evaluating quality of life measures. German clinical trials. Controlled Clin lfials 12: 915–1055Google Scholar
  6. Bullinger M, Cella D, Aaronson N, Anderson R (1993) Developing and evaluating crossnational instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Quality Life Res 2: 451–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dressler WW, Vieteri, FE, Chavez A, Greel GAC, Dos Santos JE (1991) Comparative research in social epidemiology: measurement issues. Ethnicity Disease 1: 379–393PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A (1989) Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 42(5): 403–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hui CH, Triandis HC (1985) Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. J Cross-Cultural Psychol 16(2): 131–152CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hunt SM (1993) Cross-cultural comparability of quality of life measures. Drug Info J 27: 395–400Google Scholar
  11. Hunt SM, Wiklund I (1987) Cross-cultural variation in the weighting of health statements: a comparison of English and Swedish valuations. Health Pol 8: 227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B (1978) Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Int Med 88: 251–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. McDowell I, Newell C (1987) Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York, Mc Graw-HillGoogle Scholar
  15. Patrick DL, Erikson P (1993) Health status and health policy: Allocating resources to health care. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  16. Sartorius N (1987) Cross cultural comparisons of data about quality of life: a sample of issues. In: Aaronson NK, Beckmann J (eds) The quality of life of cancer patients. Raven Press, New York, pp 1075–1077Google Scholar
  17. Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds) (1992) Measuring functioning ans well-being: the Medical Outcomes Study approach. Duke University Press, Durham and LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Tarlov A, Ware J, Greenfield S, Nelson E, Perrin E, Zubkoff M (1989) The Medical Outcome Study: an application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 262: 925–930PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Walker S, Rosser R (1992) Quality of life: key issues in the 1990s. Kluwer Academic Press, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ware JE (1987) Standards for validating health measures: definition and content. J Chronic Dis 40(6): 473–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ware JE (1993) The SF-36 Health Survey-Manual and interpretation guide. New England Medical Center (Health Institute). Nimrod Press, BostonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Bullinger

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations