Development and validation of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-CHD: combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability theory

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Rong Zhao¹  Wenru Chen⁵  Jiahua Pan⁶  Ruixue Yang³  Xuejin Fan⁴  Hezhan Li²  Chonghua Wan² 

[1] School of Medicine, Xi’An Jiaotong University, Xi’An 710049, China;School of Humanities and Management, Guangdong Medical College, Dongguan 523808, China;Guangzhou Health Education Institute, Guangzhou 510403, China;Shilong Boai Hospital Affiliated to Guangdong Medical College, Dongguan 523325, China;Shenzhen Futian District Institute for Prevention and Control of Chronic Diseases, Shenzhen 518048, China;The First Affiliated Hospital of Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650031, China

关键词: Generalizability theory;    Multi-trait scaling analysis;    Intra-class correlations;    Psychometric properties;    Standardized response mean;    Quality of life;   

Others  :  814717
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-12-82

 received in 2014-02-18, accepted in 2014-04-29,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Quality of life (QOL) for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) is now concerned worldwide with the specific instruments being seldom and no one developed by the modular approach.

Objectives

This paper is aimed to develop the CHD scale of the system of Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases (QLICD-CHD) by the modular approach and validate it by both classical test theory and Generalizability Theory.

Methods

The QLICD-CHD was developed based on programmed decision procedures with multiple nominal and focus group discussions, in-depth interview, pre-testing and quantitative statistical procedures. 146 inpatients with CHD were used to provide the data measuring QOL three times before and after treatments. The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated with respect to validity, reliability and responsiveness employing correlation analysis, factor analyses, multi-trait scaling analysis, t-tests and also G studies and D studies of Genralizability Theory analysis.

Results

Multi-trait scaling analysis, correlation and factor analyses confirmed good construct validity and criterion-related validity when using SF-36 as a criterion. The internal consistency α and test-retest reliability coefficients (Pearson r and Intra-class correlations ICC) for the overall instrument and all domains were higher than 0.70 and 0.80 respectively; The overall and all domains except for social domain had statistically significant changes after treatments with moderate effect size SRM (standardized response mea) ranging from 0.32 to 0.67. G-coefficients and index of dependability (Ф coefficients) confirmed the reliability of the scale further with more exact variance components.

Conclusions

The QLICD-CHD has good validity, reliability, and moderate responsiveness and some highlights, and can be used as the quality of life instrument for patients with CHD. However, in order to obtain better reliability, the numbers of items for social domain should be increased or the items’ quality, not quantity, should be improved.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Wan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Lopez AD, Mathers CD, Ezzati M, Jamison DT, Murray CJ: Global and regional burden of disease and risk factors, 2001: systematic analysis of population health data. Lancet 2006, 67(9524):1747-1757.
• [2]Levi F, Lucchini F, Negri E, La Vecchia C: Trends in mortality from cardiovascular and cerebrovascular diseases in Europe and other areas of the world. Heart 2002, 88(2):119-124.
• [3]Kramer L, Hirsch O, Schlöβler K, Träger S, Baum E, Donner-Banzhoff N: Associations between demographic, disease related, and treatment pathway related variables and health related quality of life in primary care patients with coronary heart disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012, 10:78. BioMed Central Full Text
• [4]Lloyd-Jones D, Adams RJ, Brown TM, Carnethon M, Dai S, De SG: Heart disease and stroke statistics — 2010 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2010, 121(7):e46-e215.
• [5]Roger VL, Go AS, Lloyd-Jones DM: Heart disease and stroke statistics–2011 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2011, 123:e18-e209.
• [6]Zhang XH, Lu ZL, Liu L: Coronary heart disease in China. Heart 2008, 94(9):1126-1131.
• [7]Wu YF: The importance of epidemiological study on cardiovascular diseases. Chin J Epidemiol 2003, 24(7):337.
• [8]Wu Z, Yao C, Zhao D, Wu G, Wang W, Liu J, Zeng Z, Wu Y: Sino-MONICA project: a collaborative study on trends and determinants in cardiovascular diseases in China, part i: morbidity and mortality monitoring. Circulation 2001, 103:462-468.
• [9]Gaziano TA, Bitton A, Anand S: Growing epidemic of coronary heart disease in low- and middle-income countries. Curr Probl Cardiol 2010, 35:72-115.
• [10]Christian AH, Cheema AF, Smith SC, Mosca L: Predictors of quality of life among women with coronary heart disease. Qual Life Res 2007, 16(3):363-373.
• [11]Failde II, Soto MM: Changes in health related quality of life 3 months after an acute coronary syndrome. BMC Public Health 2006, 6:18. BioMed Central Full Text
• [12]Veenstra M, Pettersen KI, Rollag A, Stavem K: Association of changes in health-related quality of life in coronary heart disease with coronary procedures and sociodemographic characteristics. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004, 2:56. BioMed Central Full Text
• [13]Thompson DR, Yu CM: Quality of life in patients with coronary heart disease-I: assessment tools [Review]. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 10(1):42.
• [14]Spertus JA, Winder JA, Dewhurst TA: Development and evaluation of the Seattle Angina Questionnaire: a new functional status measure for coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 1995, 25:333-341.
• [15]Valenti L, Lim L, Heller RF, Knapp J: An improved questionnaire for assessing quality of life after acute myocardial infarction. Qual Life Res 1996, 5:151-161.
• [16]Dixon T, Lim LL, Oldridge NB: The MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life instrument: reference data for users. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:173-183.
• [17]Rector TS, Kubo SH, Cohn JN: Patients' self-assessment of their congestive heart failure: content, reliability, and validity of a new measure, the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire. Heart Failure 1987, 3:198-209.
• [18]Marquis P, Fayol C, Joire JE: Lepl ge A: Psychometric properties of a specific quality of life questionnaire in angina pectoris patients. Qual Life Res 1995, 4(6):540-546.
• [19]Thompson DR, Jenkinson C, Roebuck A, Lewin RJ, Boyle RM, Chandola T: Development and validation of a short measure of health status for individuals with acute myocardial infarction:the myocardia1 infarction dimensional assessment scale(MIDAS). Qual Life Res 2002, 11(6):535-543.
• [20]Lewin RJP, Thompson DR, Martin CR, Stuckey N, Devlen J, Michaelson S, Maguire P: Validation of the Cardiovascular Limitations and Symptoms Profile (CLASP) in chronic stable angina. J Cardiopulm Rehab 2002, 22:184-191.
• [21]Sprangers MA, Cull A, Groenvold M, Bjordal K, Blazeby J, Aaronson NK: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: an update and overview. EORTC Qual of Life Study Group. Qual Life Res 1998, 7(4):291-300.
• [22]Cella D, Nowinski CJ: Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2002, 83(12 Suppl 2):S10-S17.
• [23]Wan CH, Tu XM, Messing S, Li XM, Yang Z, Zhao XD, Gao L, Yang YP, Pan JH, Zhou ZF: Development and Validation of the General Module (QLICD-GM) of the System of Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases and Comparison with SF-36. J Pain Symptom Manage 2011, 42(1):93-104.
• [24]Wan CH, Jiang RS, Tu XM, Tang W, Pan JH, Yang RX, Li XM, Yang Z, Zhang XQ: The Hypertension Scale of the System of Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases QLICD-HY: Development and Validation Study. Int J Nurs Stud 2012, 49(4):465-480.
• [25]The WHOQOL Group: The Word Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Devolvement and psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998, 12:1569-1585.
• [26]Yang Z, Li W, Tu XM, Tang W, Messing S, Duan LP, Pan JH, Li XM, Wan CH: Validation and Psychometric Properties of Chinese Version of SF-36 in Patients with Hypertension, Coronary Heart Diseases, Chronic Gastritis and Peptic Ulcer. Int J Clin Pract 2012, 66(10):991-998.
• [27]Chassany O, Sagnier P, Marquis P, Fullerton S, Aaronson N: Patient-reported outcomes: The example of health-related quality of life: a European guidance document for the improved integration of health related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Inf J 2002, 36:209-238.
• [28]Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust: Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 2002, 11:195-203.
• [29]Hays RD, Hayashi T: Beyond internal consistency reliability: rationale and use’s guide for multi-trait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behav Res Methods Instrum Compu 1990, 22:167-175.
• [30]McGraw KO, Wong SP: Forming Inferences About Some Intraclass Correlation Coefficients. Psychol Methods 1996, 1(1):30-46.
• [31]Schuck P: Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: which coefficient should be used? Qual Life Res 2004, 13:571-586.
• [32]Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM: On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res 2003, 12(4):349-363.
• [33]Husted JA, Cook RJ, Farewell VT, Gladman DD: Methods for assessing responsiveness: a critical review and recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53(5):459-468.
• [34]Winterstein BP, Willse JT, Kwapil TR, Silvia PJ: Assessment of Score dependability of the Wisconsin Schizotypy scales using generalizability analysis. Psychopathol Behav Assess 2010, 32:575-585.
• [35]Stora B, Hagtvet KA, Heyerdahl S: Reliability of observers' subjective impressions of families: A generalizability theory approach. Psychother Res 2013, 23(4):448-463.
• [36]Crits-Christoph P, Johnson J, Gallop R, Gibbons MB, Ring-Kurtz S, Hamilton JL, Tu X: A generalizability theory analysis of group process ratings in the treatment of cocaine dependence. Psychother Res 2011, 21(3):252-266.
• [37]Heitman RJ, Kovaleski JE, Pugh SF: Application of generalizability theory in estimating the reliability of ankle-complex laxity measurement. J Athl Train 2009, 44(1):48-52.
• [38]Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, Sarafian B, Linn E, Bonomi A: The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993, 11(3):570-579.