Skip to main content
Log in

Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

The Quality of Recovery-15 scale (QoR-15) is an easy-to-use score for assessing the quality of post-operative recovery.

Objectives

The primary aim of the present study was to translate the QoR-15 into the Chinese language and validate it. The secondary aim was to compare it with the Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale (PQRS).

Methods

The Chinese version of the QoR-15 (QoR-15C) was developed according to the methods adopted by the International Quality of Life Assessment project. A total of 470 patients undergoing surgery and general anesthesia completed the QoR-15C and the PQRS before or on the day of surgery, and on post-operative days (POD)-1, -3, and -30. To validate the QoR-15C, we assessed validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical feasibility and compared them with those of the PQRS.

Results

Convergent validity showed the Pearson’s r coefficient of the QoR-15C with visual analog scale and the PQRS to be 0.63 and 0.10, respectively. Predictive validity showed it had significant correlations with duration of anesthesia, duration of operation, time in post-anesthesia care unit, time in intensive care unit, and length of hospital stay. Discriminant validity showed it differed between patients who had a good or poor recovery, and decreased with increasing grades (indicating difficulty and complexity) of surgery. The intraclass correlation coefficient, split-half coefficient, and Cronbach’s α were 0.99, 0.70, and 0.76, respectively. The standardized effect size ranged from 0.85 to 1.20, and the standardized response mean ranged from 0.93 to 1.27. Compared with the QoR-15C, the PQRS may have inferior convergent validity (0.36 vs. 0.63), and split-half reliability (0.63 vs. 0.70). Furthermore, the PQRS took longer to complete: 4.20 (standard deviation 0.79) versus 1.57 (standard deviation 0.65) min.

Conclusions

Similar to the original English version, the QoR-15C reveals satisfactory psychometric properties. Furthermore, it may be a more valid, reliable, and easy-to-use scale than the PQRS.

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

Access this article

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
EUR 32.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or Ebook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Royse CF, Newman S, Chung F, Stygall J, McKay RE, Boldt J, Servin FS, Hurtado I, Hannallah R, Yu B, Wilkinson DJ. Development and feasibility of a scale to assess postoperative recovery: the post-operative quality recovery scale. Anesthesiology. 2010;113(4):892–905.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stark PA, Myles PS, Burke JA. Development and psychometric evaluation of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-15. Anesthesiology. 2013;118(6):1332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Herrera FJ, Wong J, Chung F. A systematic review of postoperative recovery outcomes measurements after ambulatory surgery. Anesth Analg. 2007;105(1):63–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Berg K, Kjellgren K, Unosson M, Arestedt K. Postoperative recovery and its association with health-related quality of life among day surgery patients. BMC Nurs. 2012;11(1):24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Oakes CL, Ellington KJ, Oakes KJ, Olson RL, Neill KM, Vacchiano CA. Assessment of post-anesthesia short-term quality of life: a pilot study. AANA J. 2002;70:267–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Talamini MA, Stanfield CL, Chang DC, Wu AW. The surgical recovery index-A novel tool for measuring the advantage of laparoscopic surgery in postoperative recovery. Surg Endosc. 2004;18:596–600.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Myles PS, Hunt JO, Nightingale CE, Fletcher H, Beh T, Tanil D, Nagy A, Rubinstein A, Ponsford JL. Development and psychometric testing of a quality of recovery score after general anesthesia and surgery in adults. Anesth Analg. 1999;88:83–90.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Myles PS, Weitkamp B, Jones K, Melick J, Hensen S. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: The QoR-40. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84:11–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hogue SL, Reese PR, Colopy M, Fleisher LA, Tuman KJ, Twersky RS, Warner DS, Jamerson B. Assessing a tool to measure patient functional ability after outpatient surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:97–106.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gornall BF, Myles PS, Smith CL, Burke JA, Leslie K, Pereira MJ, Bost JE, Kluivers KB, Nilsson UG, Tanaka Y, Forbes A. Measurement of quality of recovery using the QoR-40: a quantitative systematic review. Br J Anaesth. 2013;111(2):161–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bullinger M, Alonso J, Apolone G, Leplège A, Sullivan M, Wood-Dauphinee S, Gandek B, Wagner A, Aaronson N, Bech P, Fukuhara S, Kaasa S, Ware JE Jr. Translating health status questionnaires and evaluating their quality: the IQOLA project approach. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:913–23.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Charlson M, Szatrowski TP, Peterson J, Gold J. Validation of a combined comorbidity index. J Clin Epidemiol. 1994;47:1245.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gill TM, Feinstein AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA. 1994;272:619–26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF. Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care. 1989;27:S178–89.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Katz JN, Larson MG, Phillips CB, Fossel AH, Liang MH. Comparative measurement sensitivity of short and longer health status instruments. Med Care. 1992;30:917–25.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 3rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  17. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kirshner B, Guyatt G. A methodological framework for assessing health indices. J Chronic Dis. 1985;38:27–36.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Newman S, Stygall J, Hirani S, Shaefi S, Maze M. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction after noncardiac surgery: a systematic review. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:572–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Steinmetz J, Christensen KB, Lund T, Lohse N, Rasmussen LS. Long-term consequences of postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:548–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Marcantonio ER, Flacker JM, Michaels M, Resnick NM. Delirium is independently associated with poor functional recovery after hip fracture. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2000;48:618–24.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Moller JT, Cluitmans P, Rasmussen LS, Houx P, Rasmussen H, Canet J, Rabbitt P, Jolles J, Larsen K, Hanning CD, Langeron O, Johnson T, Lauven PM, Kristensen PA, Biedler A, van Beem H, Fraidakis O, Silverstein JH, Beneken JE, Gravenstein JS. Long-term postoperative cognitive dysfunction in the elderly ISPOCD1 study. ISPOCD investigators International Study of Post-Operative Cognitive Dysfunction. Lancet. 1998;351:857–61.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Tanaka Y, Wakita T, Fukuhara S, Nishiwada M, Inoue S, Kawaguchi M, Furuya H. Validation of the Japanese version of the quality of recovery score QoR-40. J Anesth. 2011;25(4):509–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Professor Paul Myles for authorization to translate the QoR-15 into Chinese.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yun-Xia Zuo.

Ethics declarations

Ethical approval

Ethics committee approval for the study (2014-53#) was provided by the Ethics Committee of West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, China, on 15 May 2014. Informed written consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. This study received no funding. All procedures involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Conflict of interest

Xue-Shan Bu, Jing Zhang, and Yun-Xia Zuo declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ contributions

Xue-Shan Bu designed the study, carried out the data collection, performed the statistical analysis, and finished the draft manuscript. Jing Zhang helped with data collection. Yun-Xia Zuo helped with the design and the statistical analysis, and corrected the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 58 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bu, XS., Zhang, J. & Zuo, YX. Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale. Patient 9, 251–259 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6

Keywords

Navigation