Quality of life after pulmonary embolism: first cross-cultural evaluation of the pulmonary embolism quality-of-life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire in a Norwegian cohort
- 316 Downloads
The aim of the current study was to translate and test the psychometrical properties of the disease-specific pulmonary embolism quality-of-life questionnaire (PEmb-QoL).
Patients with a prior history of pulmonary embolism (PE) were identified from the thrombosis registry at Østfold Hospital Trust, Fredrikstad, Norway. All eligible patients were asked to complete the generic EuroQol 5-dimension (EQ-5D) QoL questionnaire as well as the disease-specific PEmb-QoL at baseline and after 2 weeks. Construct validity was tested using principal component factor analysis. Criterion validity was tested using Spearman’s correlation coefficients (rho) between EQ-5D and PEmb-QoL. Internal consistency reliability was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, while test–retest reliability was calculated using the intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC).
A total of 213 participants had complete datasets and were included in further analyses. Factor analysis with varimax rotation yielded six factors explaining 71 % of the cumulative variance. Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was found to be 0.94, indicating a very good intercorrelation of items. Of the 213 participants, 145 (68 %) completed the questionnaire a second time. The ICC ranged from 0.75 to 0.86, indicating good test–retest reliability. All factors were found significant with p values <0.001. The criterion validity of the PEmb-QoL was confirmed through good correlation with other similar health-related quality-of-life constructs in the EQ-5D.
Findings of the current study indicate that Norwegian version of the PEmb-QoL is both valid and reliable, thus representing an important supplement in subjective outcomes measurement among patients sustaining PE.
KeywordsPEmb-QoL HRQoL Pulmonary embolism Psychometric evaluation Disease-specific questionnaires
- 5.Klok, F. A., Tijmensen, J. E., Haeck, M. L., van Kralingen, K. W., & Huisman, M. V. (2008). Persistent dyspnea complaints at long-term follow-up after an episode of acute pulmonary embolism: Results of a questionnaire. European Journal of Internal Medicine, 19(8), 625–629.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 8.Hawker, G., Melfi, C., Paul, J., Green, R., & Bombardier, C. (1995). Comparison of a generic (SF-36) and a disease specific (WOMAC) (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index) instrument in the measurement of outcomes after knee replacement surgery. Journal of Rheumatology, 22(6), 1193–1196.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.DeVellis, R. F. (1991). Scale development: Theory and applications (1st ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
- 20.Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10, 173–178.Google Scholar
- 23.De Vet, H. C. W., Adèr, H. J., Terwee, C. B., & Pouwer, F. (2005). Are factor analytical techniques used appropriately in the validation of health status questionnaires? A systematic review on the quality of factor analysis of the SF-36. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1203–1218.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Streiner, D. L. (1994). Figuring out factors: The use and misuse of factor analysis. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 39(3), 135–140.Google Scholar
- 29.Kline, P. (1993). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 30.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar