International Journal for Quality in Health Care Advance Access originally published online on September 16, 2007
International Journal for Quality in Health Care 2007 19(6):390-398; doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm040
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Content of quality-of-life instruments is affected by item-generation methods
1 EA4003, Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC-Inserm CIE6, Service d'Epidémiologie et Evaluation Cliniques, Nancy University, Nancy, France
2 Service de Médecine Interne, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France
3 EA4003, Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique CIC-EC-Inserm CIE6, Service d'Epidémiologie et Evaluation Cliniques, Nancy University, Nancy, France
4 EA4003, Nancy, France
5 Laboratoire de Biostatistiques Pharmaceutiques, Université de Franche-Comté, Besançon, France
6 Laboratoire de Psychologie de la Santé, UFR Sciences Humaines et Arts, Université de Metz, Metx Cedex 1, France
7 Départment de Biostatistique et d'Informatique Médicale, Hôpital Cochin, Paris, France
Background. Methods used to generate items for complex measurement scales are heterogeneous and probably produce heterogeneous data, yet nothing is known about the advantages of one method over another.
Objective. We aimed to compare methods of generating items for tools designed to measure quality-of-life for patients.
Methods. We used five methods to develop a quality-of-life instrument for patients with lower-limb osteoarthritis: individual interviews with patients involving two different techniques (semi-structured and cognitive), individual interviews with health professionals, and focus groups of patients and health professionals. The process generated 80 items, of which 37 were excluded after content and psychometric analysis. With the final 43-item scale used as a ‘reference standard’, we estimated the contribution of each method.
Results. For health professionals, the focus group and individual interviews produced 35 and 81% of the items, respectively. For patients, the focus groups produced 74% of the items and both interview techniques 100% of the items. Health professionals provided a narrower picture of the effects of the disease on quality-of-life. Focus groups contributed less to social domains than did individual interviews. The two patient interview techniques highlighted different themes.
Conclusion. In developing a complex measurement scale for patients, we found individual interviews with patients the best method for formulating items; other methods such as physician interviews and focus groups contributed no additional information. Reports of instrument generation should include details of the item-generation step, the methods used to develop items and the number of people involved.
Keywords: instrument development, item generation, osteoarthritis, qualitative methods, quality-of-life, quantitative methods
Address reprint requests to Anne-Christine Rat, Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, CIC-EC-Inserm CIE6, Service d'épideémiologie et évaluation cliniques, hôpital Marin- CHU de Nancy, 2 avenue du Maréchal de Lattre de Tassigny, C.O N°34, 54035 Nancy Cédex, France. Tel: +33-3-83852163; Fax: +33-3-83851205; E-mail: ac.rat{at}chu-nancy.fr
Accepted for publication August 8, 2007.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A.-C. Rat, F. Guillemin, and J. Pouchot Mapping the osteoarthritis knee and hip quality of life (OAKHQOL) instrument to the international classification of functioning, disability and health and comparison to five health status instruments used in osteoarthritis Rheumatology, November 1, 2008; 47(11): 1719 - 1725. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|