Quality of Life Research

, Volume 1, Issue 6, pp 385–395 | Cite as

The SmithKline Beecham ‘quality of life’ scale: a validation and reliability study in patients with affective disorder

  • M. J. Stoker
  • G. C. Dunbar
  • G. Beaumont
Research Papers

Abstract

The rationale for the development of a Repertory-Grid based quality of life assessment (QOL) is described. The emergent scale, the SmithKline Beecham Quality of Life Scale (SBQOL) utilizes 23 predetermined constructs and three fixed elements: self now, ideal self and sick self. Inclusion of the latter two elements provides a personal frame of reference for the individual and recognizes the highly idiosyncratic and subjective nature of the experience which constitutes quality of life. A study of the validity and reliability of the SBQOL was conducted in 129 patients presenting to their GP with either major depression or generalized anxiety disorder, as defined by DSM III R. Patients were treated at the discretion of their GP and followed over a period of 12 weeks with assessments of treatment efficacy being performed at 6 weeks and 12 weeks in parallel with administration of the SBQOL. The results from co-administration of standard efficacy measures such as the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) with the SBQOL, provided good evidence of construct validity. Evidence in support of the concurrent validity of the SBQOL was provided by co-administration of the Sickness Impact Profile and General Health Questionnaire (external criteria) with the SBQOL scale. Test-retest reliability and internal consistency were high. No obvious advantage was conferred by the use of principal components analysis from the Flexigrid software package in contrast to a simple arithmetical procedure for computing interelement distances. It is concluded that the SBQOL provides a valid, reliable and practicable approach to the assessment of quality of life in patients with affective disorder.

Keywords

Affective disorder quality of life scale reliability validity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    JoyceCRB. Report from European Standard for Clinical Trials (ESCT) meeting in Strasbourg 23–24 May 1991, on issues of concern in the standardization and harmonization of drug trials in Europe. Health-Related Quality of Life Session.Quality of Life Newsletter 1992;3: 10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sartorius, N. A WHO method for the assessment of health related quality of life (WHQOL). In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, eds.Quality of Life Assessment: Key issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 201–207 (in press).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    HuntSM, McEwenJ, McKennaSP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians & epidemiologists.J Roy Coll General Pract 1985;35: 185–188.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    BergnerM, BobbitRA, CanterWB, GilsonBS. The Sickness Impact Profile: development & final revision of a health status measure.Med Care 1981;19: 787–805.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Kelly GA.The Psychology of Personal Constructs 1995. Norton.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Smith M. An introduction to repertory grids —part one.Graduate Management Research, 1986.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    DunbarGC, StokerMJ, HodgesTCP, BeaumontG. The development of SBQOL: a unique scale for measuring quality of life.Br J Health Economics 1992;2: 65–74.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eysenck HJ. The Measurement of Personality. Baltimore University: Park Press. 1976.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    TschudiF.Flexigrid, v 5.1 Copyright 1990. University of Oslo, Norway.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    LittleAD. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of pharmaceuticals increasingly part of cost-containment strategies.Trends in the Making 1992;3: 1.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MillerL, DaltonM, VestalR, PerkinsJG, LyonG. Quality of Life I, Methodological and regulatory/scientific aspects.J Clin Res & Drug Devel 1989;3: 117–128.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    KarnofskyDA, BurchenalJH. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. In: MacleodCM, ed.Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents. New York: Columbia University Press, 1949: 191–205.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    GriecoA, LongCJ. Investigation of the Karnofsky performance status as a measure of quality of life.Health Psychology 1984;3: 129–142.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    GilsonBS, GilsonJS, BergnerM, et al. The Sickness Impact Profile: development of an outcome measure of health.Am J Public Health 1975;65: 1304.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ReadJL, QuinnRJ, HoeferMA. Measuring overall health: an evaluation of three important approaches.J Chron Disorder 1987;40 suppl 1: 7S-21S.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MackenzieCR, CharlsonME, DiGioiaD, KelleyK. Can the Sickness Impact Profile measure change? An example of scale assessment.J Chron Dis 1986;39: 429–438.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    BechP. Measurement of psychological distress and well-being.Psychother Psychosom 1990;54: 77–89.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    AaronsonNK. Quality of life assessment in clinical trial: methodologic issues.Controlled Clinical Trials 1989;10: 195S-208S.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. J. Stoker
    • 1
  • G. C. Dunbar
    • 1
  • G. Beaumont
    • 2
  1. 1.Clinical Research and Development, SmithKline Beecham PharmaceuticalsCNS Therapeutic UnitReigateUK
  2. 2.Priorsleigh GP PracticeStockportUK

Personalised recommendations