Quality of Life Research

, Volume 3, Issue 6, pp 385–393

The Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: a review of adaptation and instrument characteristics

  • J. Alonso
  • L. Prieto
  • J. M. Antó
Research Papers


The increased interest in measuring health status implies a need for instruments that are appropriate and valid. Adaptation of existing instruments may be a cost-effective strategy. In this paper we describe the adaptation into Spanish of the Nottingham Health Profile (NHP), a self-administered perceived health questionnaire developed in the UK. The characteristics of the adapted questionnaire (validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change), as well as current and purposed applications, are discussed. Some of the principles that were applied in the described adaptation process may be useful for similar future research: involving the investigators that developed the original instrument; using a panel of lay individuals in the translation process; testing the characteristics of the adapted instrument by replicating previous studies with the original instrument, and organizing an international group for the development and use of the European versions of the NHP. Adaptation of health status measures is an opportunity for gaining comparability when measuring health, and for learning about cross-cultural differences in health-related quality of life.

Key words

Cross-cultural comparison culture health status health status indicator quality of life questionnaires reliability sensitivity to changes validity 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Lohr KN (ed.). Advances in health status assessment: proceedings of a conference. Med Care 1992; 30(5 suppl): Ms1–Ms293.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    European Group for Quality of Life Assessment and Health Measurement. European Guide to the Nottingham Health Profile. Surrey: Brookwood Medical Publications, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J Roy Coll Gen Pract 1985; 35: 185–188.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, Niero M, Wiklund I, McKenna S. Cross-cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991; 19: 33–44.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Alonso J, Antó JM, Moreno K. Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity. Am J Public Health 1990; 80: 704–708.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alonso J, Antó JM. La versió espanyola del perfil de salut de Nottingham: una escala de mesura de la salut percebuda. Salut Catalunya 1990; 4: 105–110.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brislin RW. The wording and translation of research instruments. In: Lonner WJ, Berry JW (eds) Field Methods in Cross-cultural Research. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1986: 137–164.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leavey R, Willkin D. A comparison of two survey measures of health status. Soc Sci Med 1988; 27: 269–275.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Social inequalities and perceived health. Effective Health Care 1985; 2: 151–160.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hunt SM, McKenna SP, McEwen J, Williams J, Papp E. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15A: 221–229.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Permanyer-Miralda G, Alonso J, Antó JM, Alijarde-Guimerá M, Soler-Soler J. Comparison of perceived health status and conventional functional evaluation in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 779–786.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Badia X, Alonso J, Brosa M, Lock P. Reliability of the Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile in patients with stable end-stage renal disease. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 153–158.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Alonso J, Prieto L, Ruigómez A, Antó JM. Health-related quality of life of a representative sample of blind individuals. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 58.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Controlled Clin Trials 1991; 12: 142S-158S.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring Health. Dover: Croom Helm, 1986: 174–181.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Alonso J. Adaptació d'una mesura de salut percebuda: el Perfil de Salut de Nottingham [Adaptation of a health status measure: the Nottingham Health Profile]. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona, 1990 (Doctoral dissertation).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 171–178.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tuley MR, Mulrow CD, McMahan A. Estimating and testing an index of responsiveness and the relationship of the index to power. J Clin Epidemiol 1991; 44: 417–421.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    McKenna S, Hunt SM, McEwen J. Weighting the seriousness of perceived health problems using Thurstone's method of paired comparisons. Int J Epidemiol 1981; 10: 93–97.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kind P. A comparison for two models for scaling health indicators. Int J Epidemiol 1982; 11: 271–275.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jenkinson C. Why are we weighting? A critical examination of the use of item weights in a health status measure. Soc Sci Med 1991; 32: 1413–1416.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Prieto L, Alonso J, Antó JM, Valadrich MC. Cross-cultural comparisons in health-related quality of life: are they valid? Int J Psychol 1992; 27: 384.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fletcher A, Gore S, Jones D, Fitzpatick R, Spiegelhalter D, Cox D. Quality of life measures in health care. II: Design, analysis and interpretation. Br Med J 1992, 305: 1145–1148.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Alonso J, Antó JM, González M, Fiz JA, Izquierdo J, Morera J. Measurement of general health status of non-oxygen-dependent chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients. Med Care 1992; 30(5 suppl): MS125-MS135.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Antó JM, Alonso J. Measuring access to medical care in health surveys. In: I Regional European Meeting of the International Epidemiology Association. Granada; Escuela Andaluza de Salud Pública, 1990; 88.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Andersen R. Measuring access to health services. Am J Public Health 1978; 68: 458–463.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Collins E, Klein R. Equity and the NHS: self-reported morbidity, access, and primary care. Br Med J 1989; 281: 1111–1115.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Torrens M, San L, Garrell E, Castillo C, Martínez A, Domingo A. Quality of life in a methadone maintenence program. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 1993; 3(suppl): 411.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 369–396.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Naughton MJ, Wiklund I. A critical review of dimension-specific measures of health-related quality of life in cross-cultural research. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 397–432.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993; 46: 1417–1432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Alonso
    • 1
  • L. Prieto
    • 1
  • J. M. Antó
    • 1
  1. 1.Department d'Epidemiologia i Salut Pública, Institut Municipal d'Investigació Mèdica (IMIM)Universitat Autònoma de BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations