Rheumatology International

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 757–761 | Cite as

Acceptability, validity and reliability of the Turkish QUALIOST® in postmenopausal women with osteoporosis

  • Simin Hepguler
  • Funda Calis Atamaz
  • Yelda Pinar
  • Cihat Ozturk
Original Article


The quality-of-life questionnaire in osteoporosis (QUALIOST®) is commonly used and accepted generic instrument in osteoporosis. This study aimed to translate QUALIOST® into Turkish language and assess its reliability, validity and acceptability in women with postmenopausal osteoporosis (PMO). After the questionnaire was translated into Turkish, it was administered to 110 with PMO. The reliability studies were assessed by test–retest reliability (ICC) and internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha). Construct validity was assessed by using correlating QUALIOST® with SF-36. Results showed that ICC values were 0.92, 0.91 and 0.92, for physical domain, emotional domain and total QUALIOST® scores, respectively. Similarly, Cronbach’s alpha was acceptable in all domains (0.85, 0.83 and 0.84, respectively). Significant moderate-to-high correlations were obtained between QUALIOST® and SF-36 dimensions (r value between −0.39 and −0.72, p < 0.001). Also, there were moderate–high correlations between the domains of questionnaire and pain intensity and disease duration (r value between 0.35 and 0.45, p < 0.05). In conclusion, this study, which reported firstly psychometric properties and usefulness of the Turkish QUALIOST®, showed that it is a potentially useful measure with a high validity and reliability standards.


Postmenopausal osteoporosis Reliability QUALIOST® Validity 


  1. 1.
    Kanis JA, Melton LJ III, Christiansen C, Johnston CC, Khaltaev N (1994) The diagnosis of osteoporosis. J Bone Miner Res 9:1137–1141PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ross PD, Ettinger B, Davis JW, Melton LJ III, Wasnich RD (1991) Evaluation of adverse health outcomes associated with vertebral fractures. Osteoporos Int 1:134–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Adachi JD, Clifton J, Griffith LE, Epstein RS, Juniper EF (1993) Quality of life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis. Arrhritis Rheum 36:750–756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Silverman SL (2005) Quality-of-life issues in osteoporosis. Curr Rheumatol Rep 7:39–45PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Johnell O, Kanis JA (2006) An estimate of the worldwide prevalence and disability associated with osteoporotic fractures. Osteoporos Int 17:1726–1733PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL (1993) Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 118:622–629PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cranney A, Coyle D, Pham B, Tetroe J, Wells G, Jolly E, Tugwell P (2001) The psychometric properties of patient preferences in osteoporosis. J Rheumatol 28:132–137PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marquis P, Cialdella P, De la Loge C (2001) Development and validation of a specific quality of life module in post-menopausal women with osteoporosis: the QUALIOST. Qual Life Res 10:555–566PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De la Loge C, Sullivan K, Pinkney R, Marquis P, Roux C, Meunier PJ (2005) Cross-cultural validation and analysis of responsiveness of the QUALIOST®: QUAlity of Life questionnaire In OSTeoporosis. Health Qual Life Outcomes 3:69PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    World Health Organization Study Group (1994) Assessment of fracture risk and its application to screening for postmenopausal osteoporosis. WHO technical report series no.: 843. WHO, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    DeVellis RF (1991) Scale development: theory and applications. Sage, Newbury ParkGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shout PE, Fleiss JL (1979) Intraclass correlations: using in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull 86:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Avioli LV (1991) Significance of osteoporosis: a growing international health care problem. Calcif Tissue Int 49(Suppl):S5–S7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Melton LJ III (1993) Hip fractures: a worldwide problem today and tomorrow. Bone 14:S1–S8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kocyigit H, Aydemir O, Fisek G, Olmez N, Memis A (1999) Kısa form 36 (KF-36)’nın Türkçe versiyonunun güvenilirliği ve geçerliliği. İlaç ve Tedavi Dergisi 12:102–106Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leidig G, Minne HW, Sauer P, Wüster C, Wüster J, Lojen M, Raue F, Ziegler R (1990) A study of complaints and their relation to vertebral destruction in patients with osteoporosis. Bone Miner 8:217–229PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ross PD, Davis JW, Epstein RS, Wasnich RD (1994) Pain and disability associated with new vertebral fractures and other spinal conditions. J Clin Epidemiol 47:231–239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Adachi JD, Clifton J, Griffith LE, Epstein RS, Juniper EF (1993) Quality of life issues in women with vertebral fractures due to osteoporosis. Arthritis Rheum 36:750–756PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andresen EM (2000) Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 81(Suppl 2):S15–S20PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Deyo RA, Centor RM (1956) Assessing the responsiveness of functional scales to clinical changes; an analogy to diagnostic test performance. J Chronic Dis 39:897–906CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Simin Hepguler
    • 1
  • Funda Calis Atamaz
    • 1
    • 3
  • Yelda Pinar
    • 2
  • Cihat Ozturk
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Physical Therapy and RehabilitationMedical Faculty of Ege UniversityBornova, IzmirTurkey
  2. 2.Department of AnatomyMedical Faculty of Ege UniversityBornova, IzmirTurkey
  3. 3.Ege Universitesi Tip Fakultesi, Fiziksel Tip ve Rehabilitasyon Anabilim DaliBornova, IzmirTurkey

Personalised recommendations