The validation of a computer-adaptive test (CAT) for assessing health-related quality of life in children and adolescents in a clinical sample: study design, methods and first results of the Kids-CAT study
- 417 Downloads
Recently, we developed a computer-adaptive test (CAT) for assessing health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in children and adolescents: the Kids-CAT. It measures five generic HRQoL dimensions. The aims of this article were (1) to present the study design and (2) to investigate its psychometric properties in a clinical setting.
The Kids-CAT study is a longitudinal prospective study with eight measurements over one year at two University Medical Centers in Germany. For validating the Kids-CAT, 270 consecutive 7- to 17-year-old patients with asthma (n = 52), diabetes (n = 182) or juvenile arthritis (n = 36) answered well-established HRQoL instruments (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory™ (PedsQL), KIDSCREEN-27) and scales measuring related constructs (e.g., social support, self-efficacy). Measurement precision, test–retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity were investigated.
The mean standard error of measurement ranged between .38 and .49 for the five dimensions, which equals a reliability between .86 and .76, respectively. The Kids-CAT measured most reliably in the lower HRQoL range. Convergent validity was supported by moderate to high correlations of the Kids-CAT dimensions with corresponding PedsQL dimensions ranging between .52 and .72. A lower correlation was found between the social dimensions of both instruments. Discriminant validity was confirmed by lower correlations with non-corresponding subscales of the PedsQL.
The Kids-CAT measures pediatric HRQoL reliably, particularly in lower areas of HRQoL. Its test–retest reliability should be re-investigated in future studies. The validity of the instrument was demonstrated. Overall, results suggest that the Kids-CAT is a promising candidate for detecting psychosocial needs in chronically ill children.
KeywordsComputer-adaptive testing Quality of life Children Adolescents Reliability and validity Self-report
We thank all children, adolescents and their parents, who participated in the Kids-CAT study. We are grateful to the highly motivated study nurses Anja Bünte and Andrea Knaak and all pediatricians who contributed to the Kids-CAT project. We thank all student assistants and interns for their contributions to data entry and management. We thank the Federal Ministry of Education and Research for funding this research project. The Kids-CAT Study Group comprises: A. Bünte (Department of Pediatrics, University Medical Center Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, House 9, 24105 Kiel, Germany), K. Gulau (Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Psychotherapy, and Psychosomatics, Research Unit Child Public Health, Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany), A. Knaak (Hospital for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany), H. Muehlan (Department Health & Prevention, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University; Robert-Blum-Straße 13, 17487 Greifswald, Germany), S. Schmidt (Department Health & Prevention, Ernst-Moritz-Arndt University; Robert-Blum-Straße 13, 17487 Greifswald, Germany) and S. v. Sengbusch (Hospital for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany).
This study was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grant number 0010-01GY1111).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
D. Barthel, C. Otto, S. Nolte, A.-K. Meyrose, F. Fischer J. Devine, O. Walter, A. Mierke, K. I. Fischer, U. Thyen, M. Klein, T. Ankermann, M. Rose, U. Ravens-Sieberer, A. Bünte, K. Gulau, A. Knaak, H. Muehlan, S. Schmidt and S. v. Sengbusch declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 10.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 11.Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 13.Ravens-Sieberer, U., Herdman, M., Devine, J., Otto, C., Bullinger, M., Rose, M., et al. (2014). The European KIDSCREEN approach to measure quality of life and well-being in children: Development, current application, and future advances. Quality of Life Research, 23(3), 791–803.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 14.Ravens-Sieberer, U., & The European KIDSCREEN Group. (2006). The KIDSCREEN questionnaires—quality of life questionnaires for children and adolescents—handbook. Lengerich: Pabst Science Publ.Google Scholar
- 15.Starfield, B., Riley, A., Forrest, C., Green, B., Robertson, J., & Rajmil, L. (2007). Child health and illness profile (CHIP). A comprehensive assessment of health and functioning of children and adolescents. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.Google Scholar
- 16.Topolski, T., Edwards, T., & Patrick, D. (2002). User’s manual and interpretation guide for the youth quality of life (YQOL) instruments. Seattle: University of Washington.Google Scholar
- 18.Muehlan, H., Schmidt, S., Devine, J., Walter, O., Fischer, F., Nolte, S., et al. (2014). Assessing disease-related quality of life in children and adolescents with chronic conditions: development and application of a chronic-generic CAT derived from the DISABKIDS framework. Quality of Life Research, 23, 4.Google Scholar
- 19.Barthel, D., Fischer, K., Nolte, S., Otto, C., Meyrose, A.-K., Reisinger, S., et al. (2016). Implementation of the Kids-CAT in clinical settings: a newly developed computer-adaptive test to facilitate the assessment of patient-reported outcomes of children and adolescents in clinical practice in Germany. Quality of Life Research, 25, 585–594.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.Felder-Puig, R., Frey, E., Proksch, K., Varni, J., Gadner, H., & Topf, R. (2004). Validation of the German version of the Pediatric Quality of Life InventoryTM (PedsQLTM) in childhood cancer patients off treatment and children with epilepsy. Quality of Life Research, 13(1), 223–234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J. B., Revicki, D. A., Spritzer, K. L., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 873–880.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In J. Weinman, S. Wright & M. Johnston (Ed.), Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control beliefs (pp. 35–37). Windsor: NFER-NELSON.Google Scholar
- 28.Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur erfassung von Lehrer-und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame schulen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin.Google Scholar
- 36.Donald, C. A., & Ware, J. E. (1984). The measurement of social support. Research in Community and Mental Health, 4, 325–370.Google Scholar
- 40.Brauns, H., Scherer, S., & Steinmann, S. (2003). The CASMIN educational classification in international comparative research. In Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik J.H.P., & Wolf, C. (Eds.) Advances in cross-national comparison (pp. 221–244). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
- 45.Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2013). Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
- 46.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric Theory, 3(1), 248–292.Google Scholar
- 47.Hinkle, D. E., Wiersma, W., & Jurs, S. G. (2003). Applied statistics for the behavioral sciences. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar