Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria

被引:0
|
作者
Lohr K.N. [1 ]
机构
[1] Economic Research, RTI International, Res. Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
关键词
Health status; Item response theory; Measurement; Quality of life; Reliability; Responsiveness; Validity;
D O I
10.1023/A:1015291021312
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
The field of health status and quality of life (QoL) measurement - as a formal discipline with a cohesive theoretical framework, accepted methods, and diverse applications - has been evolving for the better part of 30 years. To identify health status and QoL instruments and review them against rigorous criteria as a precursor to creating an instrument library for later dissemination, the Medical Outcomes Trust in 1994 created an independently functioning Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). In the mid-1990s, the SAC defined a set of attributes and criteria to carry out instrument assessments; 5 years later, it updated and revised these materials to take account of the expanding theories and technologies upon which such instruments were being developed. This paper offers the SAC's current conceptualization of eight key attributes of health status and QoL instruments (i.e., conceptual and measurement model; reliability; validity; responsiveness; interpretability; respondent and administrative burden; alternate forms; and cultural and language adaptations) and the criteria by which instruments would be reviewed on each of those attributes. These are suggested guidelines for the field to consider and debate; as measurement techniques become both more familiar and more sophisticated, we expect that experts will wish to update and refine these criteria accordingly.
引用
收藏
页码:193 / 205
页数:12
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria
    Aaronson, N
    Alonso, J
    Burnam, A
    Lohr, KN
    Patrick, DL
    Perrin, E
    Stein, REK
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2002, 11 (03) : 193 - 205
  • [2] Evaluating quality-of-life and health status instruments: Development of scientific review criteria
    Lohr, KN
    Aaronson, NK
    Alonso, J
    Burnam, MA
    Patrick, DL
    Perrin, EB
    Roberts, JS
    [J]. CLINICAL THERAPEUTICS, 1996, 18 (05) : 979 - 992
  • [3] A comparative review of generic quality-of-life instruments
    Coons, SJ
    Rao, S
    Keininger, DL
    Hays, RD
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 2000, 17 (01) : 13 - 35
  • [4] A Comparative Review of Generic Quality-of-Life Instruments
    Stephen Joel Coons
    Sumati Rao
    Dorothy L. Keininger
    Ron D. Hays
    [J]. PharmacoEconomics, 2000, 17 : 13 - 35
  • [5] Systematic review on recovery specific quality-of-life instruments
    Kluivers, Kirsten B.
    Riphagen, Ingrid
    Vierhout, Mark E.
    Brolmann, Hans A. M.
    de Vet, Henrica C. W.
    [J]. SURGERY, 2008, 143 (02) : 206 - 215
  • [6] Reliability of generic quality-of-life instruments in assessing health-related quality of life among children and adolescents with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review
    Aronu, Ann E.
    Uwaezuoke, Samuel N.
    Muoneke, Uzoamaka, V
    [J]. HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES, 2021, 19 (01)
  • [7] Reliability of generic quality-of-life instruments in assessing health-related quality of life among children and adolescents with idiopathic nephrotic syndrome: a systematic review
    Ann E. Aronu
    Samuel N. Uwaezuoke
    Uzoamaka V. Muoneke
    [J]. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 19
  • [8] QUALITY-OF-LIFE INSTRUMENTS IN HYPERTENSION
    BULPITT, CJ
    FLETCHER, AE
    [J]. PHARMACOECONOMICS, 1994, 6 (06) : 523 - 535
  • [9] ORAL HEALTH-STATUS AND QUALITY-OF-LIFE
    KRESSIN, NR
    JONES, JA
    HAYES, C
    SPIRO, A
    GARCIA, RI
    [J]. JOURNAL OF DENTAL RESEARCH, 1995, 74 : 168 - 168
  • [10] Overview of Health Status Quality-of-Life Measures
    Kini, Seema P.
    DeLong, Laura K.
    [J]. DERMATOLOGIC CLINICS, 2012, 30 (02) : 209 - +