Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: short version (FQL-SV)

Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Aim of this study was to develop a brief version of the Forensic inpatient Quality of Life questionnaire (FQL).

Methods

Data from a longitudinal study of quality of life (QoL) among long-term forensic psychiatric care (LFPC) patients (N = 130) were used. Per domain, the FQL item that correlated most highly with the mean domain score and Overall QoL was selected. Internal consistency was investigated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha. Construct validity was examined by investigating the relationship with the WHOQOL-Bref and EssenCES.

Results

The original division into 15 QoL domains was retained, while the number of items per domain was reduced to one or two. The amount of subjective items was shortened from 114 items to 19 items. Reliability analysis demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .79). Content validity was assured because the FQL-SV is based on the items of the original FQL that was derived from LFPC patient’s and staff’s opinions. Construct validity was demonstrated.

Conclusions

This study has shown that the FQL-SV is a psychometrically valid abbreviation of the FQL and can therefore be used to monitor or assess QoL in forensic psychiatric care. However, when certain domains should be targeted in treatment, the FQL (full version) can assist both the patient and the clinician to get a more complete view of the individualized targets they should be aiming at in order to improve QoL.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price includes VAT (France)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Abbreviations

FQL:

Forensic inpatient Quality of life Questionnaire

QoL:

Quality of life

LFPC:

Long-term forensic psychiatric care

FQL-SV:

Forensic inpatient Quality of life Questionnaire—short version

WHOQOL-Bref:

World Health Organization Quality of Life—abbreviated version

EssenCES:

Essen Climate Evaluation Schema

References

  1. Andreasson, H., Nyman, M., Krona, H., Meyer, L., Anckarsäter, H., Nilsson, T., et al. (2014). Predictors of length of stay in forensic psychiatry: The influence of perceived risk of violence. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 37(6), 635–642.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Davoren, M., O’Dwyer, S., Abidin, Z., Naughton, L., Gibbons, O., Doyle, E., et al. (2012). Prospective in-patient cohort study of moves between levels of therapeutic security: the DUNDRUM-1 triage security, DUNDRUM-3 programme completion and DUNDRUM-4 recovery scales and the HCR-20. BMC Psychiatry, 12(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Margetić, B., Margetić, B. A., & Ivanec, D. (2014). Can Personality Traits Affect Detention Length in a Forensic Institution? Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14(4), 277–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Nagtegaal, M. H., Horst, R. P. V. D., & Schönberger, H. J. M. (2011). Inzicht in de verblijfsduur van tbs-gestelden : cijfers en mogelijke verklaringen [Understanding the duration of forensic psychiatric patients: numbers and possible explanations]. Meppel, Den Haag: WODC, Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie.

    Google Scholar 

  5. O’Neill, C., Heffernan, P., Goggins, R., Corcoran, C., Linehan, S., Duffy, D., et al. (2003). Long-stay forensic psychiatric inpatients in the Republic of Ireland: aggregated needs assessment. Irish Journal of Psychological Medicine, 20(04), 119–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ross, T., Querengässer, J., Fontao, M. I., & Hoffmann, K. (2012). Predicting discharge in forensic psychiatry: The legal and psychosocial factors associated with long and short stays in forensic psychiatric hospitals. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 35(3), 213–221.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rutherford, M., & Duggan, S. (2007). Forensic Mental Health Services : facts and figures on current provision. London: Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Purvis, M., Ward, T., & Willis, G. (2011). The good lives model in practice: Offence pathways and case management. European Journal of Probation, 3, 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Ward, T., Mann, R. E., & Gannon, T. A. (2007). The good lives model of offender rehabilitation: Clinical implications. Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 12, 87–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Fortune, C. A., Ward, T., & Polaschek, D. L. L. (2014). The Good Lives Model and Therapeutic Environments in Forensic Settings. Therapeutic Communities: The International Journal of Therapeutic Communities, 35, 95–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Vorstenbosch, E. C. W., Bulten, B. H., Bouman, Y. H. A., & Braun, P. C. (2007). Forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire. Nijmegen: Pompestichting.

    Google Scholar 

  12. WHOQOL Group. (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Oliver, J. P. J., Huxley, P., Priebe, S., & Kaiser, W. (1997). Measuring the quality of life of severely mentally ill people using the Lancashire Quality of Life Profile. Social Psychiatry Psychiatric Epidemiology, 32, 76–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Ormel, J., Lindenberg, S., Steverink, N., & Vonkorf, M. (1997). Quality of life and social production functions: A framework for understanding health effects. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 1051–1063.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Vorstenbosch, E. C. W., Bouman, Y. H. A., Braun, P. C., & Bulten, B. H. (2010). Kwaliteit van leven binnen de langdurige forensische psychiatrie. Maandblad Geestelijke Volksgezondheid, 11, 869–883.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Vorstenbosch, E. C. W., Bouman, Y. H. A., Braun, P. C., & Bulten, B. H. (2014). Psychometric properties of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: Quality of life assessment for long-term forensic psychiatric care. Health Psychology and Behavioural Medicine: An open An Open Access Journal, 2, 335–348.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Schel, S. H. H., Bouman, Y. H. A., & Bulten, B. H. (2015). Quality of life in long-term forensic psychiatric care: Comparison of self-report and proxy assessments. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 29, 162–167.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Ministerie van Veiligheid en Justitie. (2014). Forensische zorg in getal, 2009–2013. Retrieved from https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/dforzo-in-getal-2009-2013-def_tcm93-563267.pdf.

  19. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental health disorders (4 th ed., text rev). Washington, DC: Author.

  20. WHOQOL Group.(2000). Australian WHOQOL 100, WHOQOL-Bref and CA-WHOQOL instruments: User’s Manual and interpretation guide. Melbourne WHOQOL Field Study Center, University of Melbourne, department of Psychiatry, ST Vincent’s Mental Health Service.

  21. Bulten, B. H., & Fluttert, F. A. J. (2010). Essen climate evaluation schema revised (EssenCES-NL). Institute of Forensic Psychiatry: University Duisburg-Essen.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Tonkin, M., Howells, K., Ferguson, E., Clark, A., Newberry, M., & Schalast, N. (2012). Lost in Translation? Psychometric properties and construct validity of the English Essen Climate Evaluation Schema (EssenCES) social climate questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 573–580.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Saloppé, Q., & Pham, T. H. (2006). Validation du WHOQOL-Bref en Hôpital psychiatrique sécuritaire [Validation of the WHOQOL-Bref in a forensic psychiatric hospital]. Psychiatrie et Violence, 1, 1–25.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schalast, N., Redies, M., Collins, M., Stacey, J., & Howells, K. (2008). EssenCES, a short questionnaire for assessing the social climate of forensic psychiatric wards. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 18, 49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Middelboe, T., Schjodt, T., Byrsting, K., et al. (2001). Ward atmosphere in acute psychiatric in-patient care: patients’ perceptions, ideals and satisfaction. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 103, 212–219.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hilldsale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Mokkink, L. B., Terwee, C. B., Patrick, D. L., Alonso, J., Stratford, P. W., Knol, D. L., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19, 539–549.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Goetz, C., Coste, J., Lemetayer, F., Rat, A., Montel, S., Recchia, S., et al. (2013). Item reduction based on rigorous methodological guidelines is necessary to maintain validity when shortening composite measurement scales. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66, 710–718.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Stanton, J. M., Sinar, E. F., Balzer, W. B., & Smith, P. C. (2002). Issues and strategies for reducing the length of self-report scales. Personnel Psychology, 55(1), 167–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shah, A., Waldron, G., Boast, N., Coid, J. W., & Ullrich, S. (2011). Factors associated with length of admission at a medium secure forensic psychiatric unit. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 22(4), 496–512.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Sharma, A., Dunn, W., O’Toole, C., & Kennedy, H. G. (2015). The virtual institution: Cross-sectional length of stay in general adult and forensic psychiatry beds. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 9(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Omer, S., Golden, E., & Priebe, S. (2016). Exploring the mechanisms of a patient- centred assessment with a solution focused approach (DIALOG +) in the community treatment of patients with psychosis: A process evaluation within a cluster- randomised controlled trial. Plos One, 11(2), e0148415.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Forensic Psychiatric Hospital Pompefoundation, Division Diagnostics Research and Education, PO Box 31435, 6503 CK, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    S. H. H. Schel, Y. H. A. Bouman & B. H. Bulten

  2. Transfore Forensic Mental Health, Department of Research, Deventer, The Netherlands

    Y. H. A. Bouman

  3. Research Innovation and Teaching Unit, Parc Sanitari Sant Joan de Déu, Dr. Antoni Pujades 42, 08830, Sant Boi de Llobregat, Spain

    E. C. W. Vorstenbosch

  4. Behavioural Science Institute (BSI), Radboud University, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    B. H. Bulten

Authors
  1. S. H. H. Schel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Y. H. A. Bouman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E. C. W. Vorstenbosch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. B. H. Bulten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. H. H. Schel.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript are also authors of the FQL-SV and FQL. However, both questionnaires are freely available for other interested professionals. Authors declare that they do not financially benefit in any way being the authors of these questionnaires.

Ethical standards

Privacy of the patients and case managers was assured conform the policy of the institution. Patients provided written informed consent prior to the assessment, and by assigning a unique research number to each participant the statistical analyses could be conducted on anonymous data. Involvement in the study was voluntary, and all patients were informed of their right to withdraw consent before or during the study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Schel, S.H.H., Bouman, Y.H.A., Vorstenbosch, E.C.W. et al. Development of the forensic inpatient quality of life questionnaire: short version (FQL-SV). Qual Life Res 26, 1153–1161 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1461-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1461-9

Keywords

search

Navigation