Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Acceptability, validity and reliability of the Turkish QUALIOST® in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Rheumatology International Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The quality-of-life questionnaire in osteoporosis (QUALIOST®) is commonly used and accepted generic instrument in osteoporosis. This study aimed to translate QUALIOST® into Turkish language and assess its reliability, validity and acceptability in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). After the questionnaire was translated into Turkish, it was administered to 110 with PMO. The reliability studies were assessed by test–retest reliability (ICC) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). Construct validity was assessed by using correlating QUALIOST® with SF-36. Results showed that ICC values were 0.92, 0.91 and 0.92, for physical domain, emotional domain and total QUALIOST® scores, respectively. Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable in all domains (0.85, 0.83 and 0.84, respectively). Significant moderate-to-high correlations were obtained between QUALIOST® and SF-36 dimensions (r value between −0.39 and −0.72, p < 0.001). Also, there were moderate–high correlations between the domains of questionnaire and pain intensity and disease duration (r value between 0.35 and 0.45, p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study, which reported firstly psychometric properties and usefulness of the Turkish QUALIOST®, showed that it is a potentially useful measure with a high validity and reliability standards.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:1137–1141

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Ross PD, Ettinger B, Davis JW, Melton LJ III, Wasnich RD (1991) Evaluation of adverse health outcomes associated with vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 1:134–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Adachi JD, Clifton J, Griffith LE, Epstein RS, Juniper EF (1993) Quality of life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis. Arrhritis Rheum 36:750–756

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Silverman SL (2005) Quality-of-life issues in osteoporosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 7:39–45

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Cranney A, Coyle D, Pham B, Tetroe J, Wells G, Jolly E, Tugwell P (2001) The psychometric properties of patient preferences in osteoporosis. J Rheumatol 28:132–137

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Marquis P, Cialdella P, De la Loge C (2001) Development and validation of a specific quality of life module in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis: the QUALIOST. Qual Life Res 10:555–566

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. De la Loge C, Sullivan K, Pinkney R, Marquis P, Roux C, Meunier PJ (2005) Cross-cultural validation and analysis of responsiveness of the QUALIOST®: QUAlity of Life questionnaire In OSTeoporosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3:69

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO technical report series no.: 843. WHO, Geneva

  11. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. DeVellis RF (1991) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage, Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: using in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Avioli LV (1991) Significance of osteoporosis: a growing international health care problem. Calcif Tissue Int 49(Suppl):S5–S7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Melton LJ III (1993) Hip fractures: a worldwide problem today and tomorrow. Bone 14:S1–S8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A (1999) Kısa form 36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi 12:102–106

    Google Scholar 

  17. Leidig G, Minne HW, Sauer P, Wüster C, Wüster J, Lojen M, Raue F, Ziegler R (1990) A study of complaints and their relation to vertebral destruction in patients with osteoporosis. Bone Miner 8:217–229

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD (1994) Pain and disability associated with new vertebral fractures and other spinal conditions. J Clin Epidemiol 47:231–239

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Adachi JD, Clifton J, Griffith LE, Epstein RS, Juniper EF (1993) Quality of life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 36:750–756

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(Suppl 2):S15–S20

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Deyo RA, Centor RM (1956) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical changes; an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation, Medical Faculty of Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

    Simin Hepguler, Funda Calis Atamaz & Cihat Ozturk

  2. Department of Anatomy, Medical Faculty of Ege University, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

    Yelda Pinar

  3. Ege Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim Dali, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey

    Funda Calis Atamaz

Authors
  1. Simin Hepguler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Funda Calis Atamaz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yelda Pinar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cihat Ozturk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Funda Calis Atamaz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hepguler, S., Atamaz, F.C., Pinar, Y. et al. Acceptability, validity and reliability of the Turkish QUALIOST® in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis. Rheumatol Int 33, 757–761 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2443-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00296-012-2443-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation