Quality of Life Research

, Volume 14, Issue 5, pp 1225–1237 | Cite as

Content comparison of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health (ICF)

  • Alarcos Cieza
  • Gerold Stucki


The increasing recognition of the patient perspective and, more specifically, functioning and health, has led to an impressive effort in research to develop concepts and instruments to measure them. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) and the International Classification of Functioning Disability and Health (ICF) represent two different perspectives from which to look at functioning and health. Therefore, it is expected that both will often be used concurrently in clinical practice, research and health reporting. The objective of our study was to examine the relationship between six HRQOL instruments (the SF-36, the NHP, the QL-I, the WHOQOL-BREF, the WHODASII and the EQ-5D) and the ICF. All six HRQOL instruments were linked to the ICF separately by two trained health professionals according to ten linking rules developed specifically for this purpose. The degree of agreement between health professionals was calculated by means of the kappa statistic. Bootstrapped confidence intervals were calculated. In the 148 items of the 6 instruments a total of 226 concepts were identified and linked to the ICF. The estimated kappa coefficients range between 0.82 and 0.98. The concepts contained in the items of the HRQOL instruments were linked to 91 different ICF categories, 17 categories of the component body functions, 60 categories of the component activities and participation, and 14 categories of the component environmental factors. Twelve concepts could not be linked to the ICF at all. In the component body functions, only emotional functions are covered by all examined instruments. In the component activities and participation, all instruments cover aspects of work, but the half of them scarcely cover aspects of mobility. Only four of the six instruments address environmental factors. The ICF proved highly useful for the comparison of HRQOL instruments. The comparison of selected HRQOL instruments may provide clinicians and researchers with new insights when selecting health-status measures for clinical studies.


Content validity Generic instruments Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) Health status measures ICF 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Spilker B. Introduction. In: Spilker B. (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical trials, 2nd ed, Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996; 1–10.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD 1992The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). A. Conceptual framework and item selectionMedical Care30473483CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hunt, SM, McEwen, J, McKenna, SP 1985Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologistsJ R Coll Gen Pract35185188PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    World Health Organization. World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODASII). Training Manual: a guide to administration. Geneva: WHO (2000) Retrieved April 9, 2003, from <>.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    The Euroqol Group1990Euroqol-a facility for the measurement of health-related quality of lifeHealth Policy16199208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization2001International Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthWHOICF. GenevaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stucki, G, Cieza, A, Ewert, T, Kostanjsek, N, Chatterji, S, Uestuen, TB 2002Application of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) in clinical practiceDisability and Rehabilitation24281282CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cieza, A, Brockow, T, Ewert, T, Amman, E, Kollerits, B, Chatterji, S, Bedirhan Üstün, B, Stucki, G 2002Linking Health-Status measurements to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and HealthJ Rehabil Med3416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    World Health Organization1980International Classification of Impairments, Disabilities, and Handicaps: ICIDHWHOGenevaGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Stucki, G, Ewert, T, Cieza, A 2002Value and application of the ICF in rehabilitation medicineDisability and Rehabili tation24932938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Doyle, PJ 2002Measuring health outcomes in stroke survivorsArch Phys Med Rehabil83S39S43DecCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harwood, RH, Gompertz, P, Ebrahim, S 1994Handicap one year after a stroke: validity of a new scaleJ Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry57825829JulCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Spitzer, WO, Dobson, AJ, Hall, J,  et al. 1981Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: A concise QL-index for use by physiciansJ Chronic Dis34585597CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    The WHOQOL Group The development of the World Health Organization quality of life assessment instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J and Kuyken W (eds), Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Heidelberg: Springer Verlag ,1994.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Williams, A 1995The measurement and valuation of health: a chronicleUniversity of YorkYorkDiscussion Paper 136. Centre for Health Economics, York Health Economics Consortium, NHS Centre for Reviews and DisseminationGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brook R with the EuroQol group. EuroQol: the current state of play. Health Policy 1996; 37: 53–72; Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–108.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, J 1960A coefficient of agreement for nominal scalesEduc Psychol Meas203746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vierkant RA (2000). A SAS macro for calculating bootstrapped confidence intervals about a kappa coefficient. SAS Users Group International Online Proceedings. Retrieved July 23, 2004, from <>.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Weigl, M, Cieza, A, Harder, M, Geyh, S, Amann, E, Kostanjsek, N, Stucki, G 2003Linking osteoarthritis-specific health-status measures to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF)Osteoarthritis Cartilage11519523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kessler, RC, Mroczek, DK 1995Measuring the effects of medical interventionsMed Care33109119Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    McHorney, CA 1997Generic health measurement: Past accomplishments and a measurement paradigm for the 21st centuryAnn Intern Med15743750CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Waltz, M, Kriegel, W, van’tPad Bosch, P 1998The social environment and health in rheumatoid arthritis: Marital quality predicts individual variability in pain severityArthritis Care Res11356374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kirwan, J, Heiberg, T, Hewlett, S,  et al. 2003Outcomes from the Patient Perspective Workshop at OMERACT 6J Rheumatol30868872PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Johansson, U, Bernspang, B 2003Life satisfaction related to work re-entry after brain injury: A longitudinal studyBrain Inj179911002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vestling, M, Tufvesson, B, Iwarsson, S 2003Indicators for return to work after stroke and the importance of work for subjective well-being and life satisfactionJ Rehabil Med35127131CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Avlund, K, Lund, R, Holstein, BE, Due, P 2004Social relations as determinant of onset of disability in agingArch Gerontol Geriatr388599CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Travis, LA, Lyness, JM, Shields, CG, King, DA, Cox, C 2004Social support, depression, and functional disability in older adult primary-care patientsAm J Geriatr Psychiatry12265271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ICF Research Branch, WHO FIC Collaborating Center (DIMDI), IMBKLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  2. 2.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationLudwig-Maximilians-UniversityMunichGermany
  3. 3.Department of Physical Medicine and RehabilitationUniversity of MunichMunichGermany

Personalised recommendations