Quality of Life Research

, Volume 19, Issue 1, pp 111–123 | Cite as

Health and role functioning: the use of focus groups in the development of an item bank

  • Milena D. Anatchkova
  • Jakob B. Bjorner



Role functioning is an important part of health-related quality of life. However, assessment of role functioning is complicated by the wide definition of roles and by fluctuations in role participation across the life-span. The aim of this study is to explore variations in role functioning across the lifespan using qualitative approaches, to inform the development of a role functioning item bank and to pilot test sample items from the bank.


Eight focus groups were conducted with a convenience sample of 38 English-speaking adults recruited in Rhode Island. Participants were stratified by gender and four age groups. Focus groups were taped, transcribed, and analyzed for thematic content.


Participants of all ages identified family roles as the most important. There was age variation in the importance of social life roles, with younger and older adults rating them as more important.

Occupational roles were identified as important by younger and middle-aged participants. The potential of health problems to affect role participation was recognized. Participants found the sample items easy to understand, response options identical in meaning and preferred five response choices.


Participants identified key aspects of role functioning and provided insights on their perception of the impact of health on their role participation. These results will inform item bank generation.


Role functioning Focus group Life-span 



The project described was supported by Award Number 1K01AG028760-01A1 from the National Institute on Aging. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institute on Aging or the National Institutes of Health.


  1. 1.
    Biddle, B. J. (1986). Recent development in role theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 12, 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Conway, M. E. (1988). Theoretical approaches to the study of roles. In M. E. Hardy & K. Cook (Eds.), Role theory perspectives for health professionals (pp. 63–73). Norwalk: Appleton & Lange.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hardy, M. E., & Hardy, W. (1988). Development of scientific knowledge. In M. E. Hardy & M. E. Conway (Eds.), Role theory: Perspectives for health professionals. Norwalk: Appleton&Lange.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wiersma, D. (1988). Role functioning as a component of quality of life in mental disorders. In M. E. Hardy & M. E. Conway (Eds.), Role theory: Perspectives for health professionals (pp. 45–56). Norwalk: Appleton&Lange.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sherbourne, D. C., Stewart, A. L., & Wells, K. B. (1992). Role functioning measures. In A. Stewart & J. E. Ware Jr (Eds.), Measuring functioning and well-being (pp. 205–219). Durham and London: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF—The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Geneva: World Health Organization (WHO).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ustun, T. B., Chatterji, S., Bickenbach, J., Kostanjsek, N., & Schneider, M. (2003). The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: A new tool for understanding disability and health. Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 565–571.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Badley, E. M. (2008). Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Social Science and Medicine, 66, 2335–2345.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Perenboom, R. J., & Chorus, A. M. (2003). Measuring participation according to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Disability and Rehabilitation, 25, 577–587.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schuntermann, M. F. (2005). The implementation of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in Germany: Experiences and problems. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28, 93–102.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jette, A. M. (2006). Toward a common language for function, disability, and health. Physical Therapy, 86, 726–734.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mangen, D. J., & Peterson, W. A. (1982). Social roles and social participation. In D. J. Mangen & W. A. Peterson (Eds.), Research instruments in social gerontology Vol. 2. Minneapolis, MI: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Testa, M. A., & Simonson, D. C. (1996). Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 334, 835–840.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Graney, M. J. (1982). Social participation roles. In D. J. Mangen & W. A. Peterson (Eds.), Social roles and social participation (pp. 9–42). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cardol, M., Brandsma, J. W., de Groot, I. J., van den Bos, G. A., de Haan, R. J., & de Jong, B. A. (1999). Handicap questionnaires: What do they assess? Disability and Rehabilitation, 21, 97–105.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Dijkers, M. P., Whiteneck, G., & El Jaroudi, R. (2000). Measures of social outcomes in disability research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81, S63–S80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hardy, M. E., & Conway, M. E. (1988). Role theory: Perspectives for health professionals (2nd ed.). Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McDowell, I. (1996). Measuring health: A guide to rating scales and questionnaires (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Loeppke, R., Hymel, P. A., Lofland, J. H., Pizzi, L. T., Konicki, D. L., Anstadt, G. W., et al. (2003). Health-related workplace productivity measurement: General and migraine-specific recommendations from the ACOEM Expert Panel. Journal of Occupation and Environmental Medicine, 45, 349–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lofland, J. H., Pizzi, L., & Frick, K. D. (2004). A review of health-related workplace productivity loss instruments. Pharmacoeconomics, 22, 165–184.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mattke, S., Balakrishnan, A., Bergamo, G., & Newberry, S. J. (2007). A review of methods to measure health-related productivity loss. The American Journal of Managed Care, 13, 211–217.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ware, J. E., Jr., & Dewey, J. (2000). How to score version two of the SF-36 health survey. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goodman, S. H., Sewell, D. R., Cooley, E. L., & Leavitt, N. (1993). Assessing levels of adaptive functioning: The role functioning scale. Community Mental Health Journal, 29, 119–131.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gandek, B., Sinclair, S. J., Jette, A. M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2007). Development and initial psychometric evaluation of the participation measure for post-acute care (PM-PAC). American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 86, 57–71.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Haley, S. M., Gandek, B., Siebens, H., Black-Schaffer, R. M., Sinclair, S. J., Tao, W., et al. (2008). Computerized adaptive testing for follow-up after discharge from inpatient rehabilitation: II. Participation outcomes. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 89, 275–283.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Mulcahey, M. J., Haley, S. M., Duffy, T., Pengsheng, N., & Betz, R. R. (2008). Measuring physical functioning in children with spinal impairments with computerized adaptive testing. Journal of Pediatric Orthopaedics, 28, 330–335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilkie, D. J., Judge, M. K., Berry, D. L., Dell, J., Zong, S., & Gilespie, R. (2003). Usability of a computerized PAINReportIt in the general public with pain and people with cancer pain. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 25, 213–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Castel, L. D., Williams, K. A., Bosworth, H. B., Eisen, S. V., Hahn, E. A., Irwin, D. E., et al. (2008). Content validity in the PROMIS social-health domain: A qualitative analysis of focus-group data. Quality of Life Research, 17, 737–749.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wainer, H., & Mislevy, R. J. (2000). Item response theory, item calibration, and proficiency estimation. In H. Wainer, N. J. Dorans, R. Flaugher, B. F. Green, L. Mislevy, L. Steinberg, & D. Thissen (Eds.), Computerized adaptive testing: A primer (pp. 61–101). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    O’Brien, K. (1993). Using focus groups to develop health surveys: An example from research on social relationships and AIDS-preventive behavior. Health Education & Behavior, 20, 361–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Koopman, W. (2003). Needs assessment of persons with multiple sclerosis and significant others: Using the literature review and focus groups for preliminary survey questionnaire development. Axone, 24, 10–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    McLeod, P. J., Meagher, T. W., Steinert, Y., & Boudreau, D. (2000). Using focus groups to design a valid questionnaire. Academic Medicine, 75, 671.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Detmar, S. B., Bruil, J., Ravens-Sieberer, U., Gosch, A., & Bisegger, C. (2006). The use of focus groups in the development of the KIDSCREEN HRQL questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1345–1353.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barr, J., & Schumacher, G. (2003). Using focus groups to determine what constitutes quality of life in clients receiving medical nutrition therapy: First steps in the development of a nutrition quality-of-life survey. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 103, 844–851.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Mangione, C. M., Berry, S., Spritzer, K., Janz, N. K., Klein, R., Owsley, C., et al. (1998). Identifying the content area for the 51-item National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire: Results from focus groups with visually impaired persons. Archives of Ophthalmology, 116, 227–233.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration (2006). Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    DeWalt, D. A., Rothrock, N., Yount, S., & Stone, A. A. (2007). Evaluation of item candidates: The PROMIS qualitative item review. Medical Care, 45, S12–S21.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Thorne, S., Jensen, L., Kearney, M. H., Noblit, G., & Sandelowski, M. (2004). Qualitative metasynthesis: Reflections on methodological orientation and ideological agenda. Qualitative Health Research, 14, 1342–1365.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Lawton, J. (2003). Lay experiences of health and illness: Past research and future agendas. Sociology of Health & Illness, 25, 23–40.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bury, M. (1982). Chronic illness as biographical disruption. Sociology of Health & Illness, 4, 167–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Charmaz, K. (1983). Loss of self: A fundamental form of suffering in the chronically ill. Sociology of Health & Illness, 5, 168–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hainsworth, M. A. (1994). Living with multiple sclerosis: The experience of chronic sorrow. The Journal of Neuroscience Nursing, 26, 237–240.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Anatchkova, M. D. & Bjorner, J. B. (2007). Conceptual Review of Role Functioing Measures Internal report.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Turner-Bowker, D. M., Saris-Baglama, R. N., DeRosa, M, Paulsen, C. A., & Bransfield, C. (2008). Participants’ experience of asthma: Results from a Focus Group Study. Poster presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 13th Annual International Meeting, Toronto, Canada. In.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Turner-Bowker, D. M., Saris-Baglama, R. N., DeRosa, M. A., Paulsen, C. A., & Bransfield, C. P. (2009). Using qualitative research to inform the development of a comprehensive outcomes assessment for asthma. The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, (in press).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Richardson, M. M., Saris-Baglama, R. N., Anatchkova, M. D., Stevens, L. A., Miskulin, D. C., Turner-Bowker, D. M. et al. (2007). Patient experience of chronic kidney disease (CKD): Results of a Focus Group Study. In.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Billson, J., Steinmeyer, M., Reis, K., & Downes, B. (2007). The impacts of chronic kidney disease on quality of life: Focus group exploration of domains/items for computerized adaptive testing. Technical report prepared for QualityMetric Incorporated: Group Dimensions International.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Conrad, P. (1990). Qualitative research on chronic illness: A commentary on method and conceptual development. Social Science and Medicine, 30, 1257–1263.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Quantitative Health SciencesUniversity of Massachusetts Medical SchoolWorcesterUSA
  2. 2.National Research Center for the Working EnvironmentCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.QualityMetric IncorporatedLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations