Skip to main content
Log in

Feasibility and validity of a computer administered version of SEIQoL-DW

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript


Computer administrered QoL instruments are increasingly used to assess outcomes. Our aim was to assess the feasibility and validity of an electronic version of the SEIQoL-DW. Pharmacy students (n = 40; mean age 25; 92% women) were administrated both the touch screen and the paper-and-pen versions in a cross-over study. The majority of the students (65 %) preferred the computer version, while almost a third (27%) preferred the paper and pen version. There was no overall order effect and the SEOQoL-DW index mean scores differed with 1.2 between the two versions. Those respondents completing the computer version first had higher scores than those completing the computer version second. The ICC comparing the formats was 0.77 (CI: 0.57–0.88) and the limits of agreement method showed that 85% of the observations were within ± 1–10 units. Most students (82%) judged their QoL as being equivalent to their SEIQoL-DW score. The computer version of the SEIQoL-DW seems to be feasible and acceptable and seems to be valid alternative to the paper and pen version. However, further validation studies in larger patient populations are needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others


  1. Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A and Fitzpatrick R (2002). Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 324: 1417

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Morris J, Perez D and McNoe B (1998). The use of quality of life data in clinical practice. Qual Life Res 7: 85–91

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Velikova G, Brown JM, Smith AB and Selby PJ (2002). Computer-based quality of life questionnaires may contribute to doctor-patient interactions in oncology. Br J Cancer 86: 51–59

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Joyce CRB, McGee HM and O’Boyle CA (1999). Individual Quality of Life: Approaches to Conceptualisation and Assessment. Harwood Academic Publishers, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  5. Waldron D, O’Boyle CA and Kearney M (1999). Quality-of-life measurement in advanced cancer: assessing the individual. J Clin Oncol 17: 3603–3611

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Moons P, Marquet K, Budts W, De Geest S. Validity, reliability and resposnsiveness of the “Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life – Direct Weighting” (SEIQoL-DW) in congenital heart disease. HQLO 2004, 2:27 (28 May 2004). Retrieved Feb 5, 2005 from

  7. Neudert C, Wasner M and Borasio GD (2001). Patients’ assessment of quality of life instruments: a randomised study of SIP, SF-36 and SEIQoL-DW in patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. J Neurol Sci 191: 103–109

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Bernhard J, Hurny C and Maibach R (1999). Quality of life as subjective experience: reframing of perception in patients with colon cancer undergoing radical resection with or without adjuvant chemotherapy. Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research (SAKK). Ann Oncol 10: 775–782

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Sharpe L, Butow P and Smith C (2005). Changes in quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: evidence of response shift and response restriction. J Psychosom Res 58: 497–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Sprangers MA and Schwartz CE (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: a theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 48: 1507–1515

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rees J, Clarke MG, Waldron D et al. The measurement of response shift in patients with advanced prostate cancer and their partners. HQLO 2005, 3:21 (30 March 2005). Retrieved Feb 9, 2005 from

  12. Echteld MA, Deliens L and Ooms ME (2005). Quality of life change and response shift in patients admitted to palliative care units: a pilot study. Palliat Med 19: 381–388

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Velikova G, Booth L and Smith AB (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 22: 714–724

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Velikova G, Wright EP and Smith AB (1999). collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 17: 998–1007

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Pouwer F and Snoek FJ (1998). A comparison of the standard and the computerized versions of the Well-being Questionnaire (WBQ) and the Diabetes Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire (DTSQ). Qual Life Res 7: 33–38

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Vondechend M, Bellamy N and Theiler R (2005). Validation and patient acceptance of a computer touch screen version of the WOMAC 3.1 osteoarthritis index. Ann Rheum Dis 64: 80–84

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Tourangeau R and Smith T (1996). Asking sensitive questions: the impact of data collection mode, question format and question context. Public Opin Q 60: 275–304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ryan JM, Corry JR, Attewell R and Smithson MJ (2002). A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 General Health Questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 11: 19–26

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Trimmel M, Strassler F and Knerer K (2001). Brain DC potential changes of computerized tasks and paper/pencil tasks. Int J Psychophysiol 40: 187–194

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Hickey AM, Bury G and O’Boyle CA (1996). A new short form individual quality of life measure (SEIQoL-DW): application in a cohort of individuals with HIV/AIDS. BMJ 313: 29–33

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Bland JM and Altman DG (1986). Statistical methods for assesing agreement betweent two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet 8: 307–310

    Google Scholar 

  22. Streiner DL and Norman GR (1995). Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to their Development and Use. Oxford University Press Inc, New York

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sloan JA, Cella D and Frost M (2002). Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clin Proc 77: 367–370

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to L Ring.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ring, L., Lindblad, Å.K., Bendtsen, P. et al. Feasibility and validity of a computer administered version of SEIQoL-DW. Qual Life Res 15, 1173–1177 (2006).

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: