Injection Drug Use Quality of Life scale (IDUQOL): A validation study

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Anita Palepu²  Lara B Russell¹  Anita M Hubley¹ 

[1] Measurement Evaluation and Research Methodology, Dept of ECPS, 2125 Main Mall, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada;Centre for Health Outcome and Evaluation Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada

关键词: Validity;    Reliability;    Quality of Life;    Psychometrics;    Factor Analysis;    Drug Use;   

Others  :  1216845
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-3-43

 received in 2005-05-04, accepted in 2005-07-19,  发布年份 2005

【 摘 要 】

Background

Existing measures of injection drug users' quality of life have focused primarily on health and health-related factors. Clearly, however, quality of life among injection drug users is impacted by a range of unique cultural, socioeconomic, medical, and geographic factors that must also be considered in any measure. The Injection Drug User Quality of Life (IDUQOL) scale was designed to capture the unique and individual circumstances that determine quality of life among injection drug users. The overall purpose of the present study was to examine the validity of inferences made from the IDUQOL by examining the (a) dimensionality, (b) reliability of scores, (c) criterion-related validity evidence, and (d) both convergent and discriminant validity evidence.

Methods

An exploratory factor analysis using principal axis factoring in SPSS 12.0 was conducted to determine whether the use of a total score on the IDUQOL was advisable. Reliability of scores from the IDUQOL was obtained using internal consistency and one-week test-retest reliability estimates. Criterion-related validity evidence was gathered using variables such as stability of housing, sex trade involvement, high-risk injection behaviours, involvement in treatment programs, emergency treatment or overdose over the previous six months, hospitalization and emergency treatment over the subsequent six month period post data collection. Convergent and discriminant validity evidence was gathered using measures of life satisfaction, self-esteem, and social desirability.

Results

The sample consisted of 241 injection drug users ranging in age from 19 to 61 years. Factor analysis supports the use of a total score. Both internal consistency (alpha = .88) and one-week test-retest reliability (r = .78) for IDUQOL total scores were good. Criterion-related, convergent, and discriminant validity evidence supports the interpretation of IDUQOL total scores as measuring a construct consistent with quality of life.

Conclusion

The findings from this study provide initial evidence to support the use of the IDUQOL total score. The results of the study also suggest the IDUQOL could be further strengthened with additional attention to how some IDUQOL domains are described and satisfaction is measured.

【 授权许可】

   
2005 Hubley et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Darke S, Hall W, Wodak A, Heather N, Ward J: Development and validation of a multidimensional instrument for assessing outcome of treatment among opiate users: Opiate Treatment Index. British Journal of Addiction 1992, 87:733-742.
• [2]Torrens M, San L, Martinez A, Castillo C, Domingo-Salvany A, Alonso J: Use of the Nottingham Health Profile for measuring health status of patients in methadone maintenance treatment. Addiction 1997, 92:707-716.
• [3]Puigdollers E, Domingo-Salvany A, Brugal MT, Torrens M, Alvaros J, Castillo C, Magri N, Martin S, Vazquez JM: Characteristics of heroin addicts entering methadone maintenance treatment: Quality of life and gender. Substance Use & Misuse 2004, 39:1353-1368.
• [4]Ryan CF, White JM: Health status at entry to methadone maintenance treatment using the SF-36 health survey questionnaire. Addiction 1996, 91:39-45.
• [5]Stein MD, Mulvey KP, Plough A, Samet JH: The functioning and well being of persons who seek treatment for drug and alcohol use. Journal of Substance Abuse 1998, 10:75-84.
• [6]Carretero MD, Burgess AP, Soler P, Soler M, Catalan J: Reliability and validity of an HIV-specific health-related quality-of-life measure for use with injecting drug users. AIDS 1996, 10:1699-1705.
• [7]Dalgard O, Egeland A, Skaug K, Vilimas K, Steen T: Health-related quality of life in active injecting drug users with and without chronic hepatitis C virus infection. Hepatology 2004, 39:74-80.
• [8]Falck RS, Wang J, Carlson RG, Siegal HA: Crack-cocaine use and mental health status as defined by the SF-36. Addictive Behaviors 2000, 25:579-584.
• [9]Smith KW, Avis NE, Assmann SF: Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research 1999, 8:447-459.
• [10]Metzger DS, O'Brien CP: Substance Abuse: The Challenge of Assessment. In Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. Edited by Spilker B. New York, Raven Press, Ltd.; 1990:237-246.
• [11]Koch T: Life quality vs the 'quality of life': Assumptions and underlying prospective quality of life instruments in health care planning. Social Science and Medicine 2000, 51:419-427.
• [12]Globe DR, Hays RD, Cunningham WE: Associations of clinical parameters with health-related quality of life in hospitalized persons with HIV disease. AIDS Care 1999, 17:71-86.
• [13]Brogly S, Mercier C, Bruneau J, Palepu A, Franco E: Towards more effective public health programming for injection drug users: Development and evaluation of the Injection Drug User Quality of Life Scale. Substance Use & Misuse 2003, 38:965-992.
• [14]APA, AERA, NCME: Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, National Council on Measurement in Education; 1985.
• [15]Hubley AM, Zumbo BD: A dialectic on validity: Where we have been and where we are going. J Gen Psychol 1996, 123:207-215.
• [16]Messick S: Validity of test interpretation and use. Research Report No. 90-11. Educational Testing Service; 1990.
• [17]Strathdee SA, Patrick DM, Currie SL, Cornelisse PG, Rekart ML, Montaner JS, Schechter MT, O'Shaughnessy MV: Needle exchange is not enough: lessons from the Vancouver injecting drug use study. AIDS 1997, 11:F59-65.
• [18]Russell LB, Hubley AM: Importance ratings and weightings: Old concerns and new perspectives. International Journal of Testing 2005, 5:105-131.
• [19]Russell LB, Hubley AM, Palepu A, Zumbo BD: Does weighting capture what's important? Revisiting subjective importance weighting with a quality of life measure. Social Indicators Researchin press
• [20]Diener E, Emmons RA, Larsen RJ, Griffin S: The Satisfaction With Life Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment 1985, 49:71-74.
• [21]Rosenberg M: Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press; 1965.
• [22]Strahan R, Gerbasi KC: Short, homonegeous versions of the Marlow-Crowne Social Desirability Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1972, 28:191-193.
• [23]Crowne DP, Marlowe D: A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1960, 24:349-354.
• [24]Campbell DT: Recommendations for APA test standards regarding construct, trait and discriminant validity. American Psychologist 1960, 15:546-553.
• [25]Foster SL, Cone JD: Validity issues in clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment 1995, 7:248-260.
• [26]Nandakumar R, Ackerman T: Test modeling. In The SAGE Handbook of Quantitative Methodology for the Social Sciences. Edited by Kaplan D. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications; 2004:93-105.
• [27]Pedhazur EJ, Schmelkin LP: Measurement and scientific inquiry. In Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc. Pub.; 1991.
• [28]Stout W: A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika 1987, 52:589-617.
• [29]Stout WF: A new item response theory modeling approach with applications to unidimensionality assessment and ability estimation. Psychometrika 1990, 55:293-325.
• [30]Gorsuch RL: Factor analysis. 2nd edition. Hillsdale, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum; 1983.
• [31]Pett MA, Lackey NR, Sullivan JJ: Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications; 2003.
• [32]Hattie J: Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Applied Psychological Measurement 1984, 20:1-14.
• [33]Hattie J: An empirical study of the various indices for determining unidimensionality. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1985, 19:49-78.
• [34]Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, Strahan EJ: Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods 1999, 4:272-299.
• [35]Russell DW: In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 2002, 28:1629-1646.
• [36]Clark LA, Watson D: Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment 1995, 7:309-319.
• [37]Cohen J: A power primer. Psychological Bulletin 1992, 112:155-159.
• [38]Netemeyer RG, Bearden WO, Sharma S: Scaling procedures: issues and applications. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Press; 2003.