Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 7, Issue 5, pp 433–445 | Cite as

Canadian-French, German and UK versions of the Child Health Questionnaire: methodology and preliminary item scaling results

  • J. M. Landgraf
  • E. Maunsell
  • K. Nixon Speechley
  • M. Bullinger
  • S. Campbell
  • L. Abetz
  • J. E. Ware
Article

Abstract

Using emerging international guidelines, stringent procedures were used to develop and evaluate Canadian-French, German and UK translations/ adaptions of the 50 item, parent-completed Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ-PF50). Multitrait analysis was used to evaluate the convergent and discriminant validity of the hypothesized item sets across countries relative to the results obtained for a representative sample of children in the US. Cronbach's a coefficient was used to estimate the internal consistency reliability for each of the health scales. Floor and ceiling effects were also examined. Seventy-nine percent of all the item-scale correlations achieved acceptable internal consistency (0.40 or higher). The tests of the item convergent and discriminant validity were successful at least 87% of the time across all scales and countries. Equal item variance was observed 90% of the time across all countries. The reliability coefficients ranged from a low of 0.43 (parental time impact, Canadian English) to a high of 0.97 (physical functioning index, Canadian French) across all scales (median 0.80). Negligible floor effects were observed across countries. Noteworthy ceiling effects were observed, as expected, for the hypothesized physical scales (mean effect 73%). Conversely, fewer ceiling effects were observed for the psychosocial scales (range 3–17% behaviour parental emotional impact). The item-scaling results obtained in these pilot studies support the psychometric properties of the American-English CHQ-PF50 and its respective translations.

Child Health Questionnaire; translation; multitrait analysis. 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Landgraf JM, Ware JE Jr, Schor E, Davies AR, R-Roh K. Health profiles in children with psychiatric and other medical conditions. Paper presented at the Ninth World Congress of Psychiatry, Rio de Janiero, Brasil, 6–12 June, 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Landgraf JM, Ware JE Jr, Schor E, Davies AR, R-Roh K. Comparison of health status profiles for children with medical conditions: preliminary psychometric and clinical results from the Children's Health and Quality of Life Project. Paper presented at the Tenth Annual Meeting of the Association for Health Services Research, Washington, DC, 27–29 June, 1993.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Landgraf JM, Abetz L, Ware JE, Jr. The CHQ: A User's Manual. 1st edn. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Landgraf JM, Abetz L. Influences of sociodemographic characteristics on parental reports of children's physical and psychosocial well-being: early experiences with the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ-PF50), In: Drotar D, ed. Quality of Life Assessment in Children. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Landgraf JM, Abetz L. Functional status and well-being of children representing three cultural groups: initial self-reports using the CHQ-CF87. J Psychol Health, 1977; 12(6): 1-16.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kurtin P, Landgraf JM, Abetz L. Patient-based health status measurements in pediatric dialysis: expanding the assessment of outcomes. Am J Kidney Dis 1994; 24(2): 376-382.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Powers P, Abetz L, Landgraf JM. Adolescents with cystic fibrosis: mother, father and child reports of health. Poster presentation at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, August 1996.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Landgraf JM, Abetz LN, DeNardo BA, Tucker LB. Clinical validity of the Child Health Questionnaire-Parent Form in children with rheumatoid arthritis. Poster presentation at the 1995 National Scientific Meeting of the American College of Rheumatology, San Francisco, CA, 21–16 October 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ware JE, Keller SD, Gandek B et al. Evaluating translations of health status questionnaires: methods from the IQOLA project. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 1995; 11(3): 525-550.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ware JE, Gandek B, IQOLA Project Group. Evaluating instruments used cross-nationally: IQOLA project methods. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn., 1995.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    EuroQol Group. EuroQol: a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199-208.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aaronson NK, Acquadro C., Alonso J et al. International Quality of Life (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res 1992; 1: 349-351.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 451-459.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bullinger M. Ensuring international equivalence of quality of life measures: problems and approaches to solutions. In: Orley J, Kuyken W, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 33-40.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bullinger M, Mackensen S, Landgraf JM. Assessing quality of life in children. Qual Life Res 1994; 1: 41Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Landgraf JM, Maunsell E, Speechly KN et al. Psychometric properties of the Child Health Questionnaire (Parent Form) among English and French-speaking Canadian respondents: preliminary results. Paper presented at the Second Meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 14–17 October 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Landgraf JM, Erling A, Wilkund I, Abetz L, Ware JE. The Child Health Questionnaire: issues in translation, language and culture for Swedish children and their parents. Poster presentation at the Second Meeting of the International Society for Quality of Life Research, Montreal, Quebec, Canada, 14–17 October 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dekker R, Walda I. Validation of the Dutch Child Health Questionnaire. Rotterdam: Landbouwuniversiteit Wageningen, 1995.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Brislin RW. Back-translation for cross-cultural research. J Cross-Cultural Psychol 1970; 1(3): 185-216.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Werner O, Campbell DT. Translating, working through interpreters and the problem of decentering. In: Naroll R, Cohen R,eds. A Handbook of Cultural Anthropology. New York: American Museum of Natural History, 1970.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thalji L., Haggerty CC, Rubin R, Berckmans T.R, Pardee BL. 1990 National Survey of Functional Health Status: Final Report. Chicago, IL: NORC, 1991.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Eisen M, Ware JE Jr, Donald CA et al. Measuring components of children's health status. Med Care 1979; 17: 902-921.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Boyle MH, Offord DR, Hofmann HG et al. Ontario child health study. I. Methodology. Arch Gen Psychiatr 1987; 44: 826-831.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stein REK, Jessop DJ. Functional status II(R): a measure of child health status. Med Care 1990; 28: 1041-1055.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Starfield B, Bergner M, Ensminger M et al. Adolescent health status measurement: development of the child health and illness profile. Pediatrics 1993; 91: 430-435.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Starfield B, Reiley A, Green B et al. The adolescent child health and illness profile: a population-based measure of health. Med Care 1995; 33(5): 553-566.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wasson, JH, Kairys S, Nelson E et al. A short survey for assessing health and social problems of adolescents. J Family Practice 1994; 38(5): 489-494.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Apajasalo M, Sintonen H, Holmberg C et al. Quality of life in early adolescence: a sixteen dimensional health-related measure (16 D). Qual Life Res 1994; 5: 205-211.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    French DJ, Christie MJ, Sowden AJ. The reproducibility of the Childhood Asthma Questionnaires: measures of quality of life for children with asthma ages 4–16 years. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 215-224.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lindstrom B, Erikkson B. Quality of life among children in the Nordic countries. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 23-32.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nespoli L, Verri AP, Locatelli F, Bertuggia RM, Taibi RM, Burgio GR. The impact of paediatric bone marrow transplantation on quality of life. Qual Life Res 1995; 4: 223-240.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilkund I, Wiren L, Erling A, Karlberg J, Albertsson-Wikland. A new self-assessment questionnaire to measure well-being in children, particularly those of short stature. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 449-455.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bullers S. Women's roles and health: the mediating effect of perceived control. Women Health 22(2): 11-30.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hong Gong-Soog, White-Means SI. Do working mothers have healthy children. J Family Econ Issues 14(2): 163-186.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Likert RA. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Arch Psychol 32;140: 5.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Landgraf JM, Abetz L. Measuring health outcomes in pediatric populations: issues in psychometrics and application. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Raven Press, 1995: 793-802.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Landgraf JM. Pretend, pretend goodluck bear is walking...: an examination of the communicative devices used by peers to initiate and sustain convergent interaction. Thesis, San Diego State University, San Diego, 1986.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Landgraf JM, Beach W. The cycle of children s play: gaining access and sustaining focus in sibling interactions. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the International Communication Association, Montreal, Canada, May 1986.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Landgraf JM, Nelson EC. Increasing one's understanding of patient health: a preliminary summary of the WONCA/COOP Chart International Field Trial. Aust Family J 1992; 21(3): 255-269.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Nelson EC, Landgraf JM, Hays RD et al. The COOP function charts: a system to measure patient function in physicians offices, In: Lipkin M, ed. Frontiers in Primary Care: Functional Status Measurement in Primary Care. Springer-Verlag, 1990, 97-131.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lustig R, Giglio K, Landgraf JM, Myers S. Connotative versus denotative meaning in intercultural communication: a research note. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Speech Communication Association Intercultural Communication Division, Fresno, CA, February 1985.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ware JE, Kosinksi M, Snow K, Gandek B. The SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Boston, MA: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Bullinger M, von Mackensen S, Kirchberger I. KINDL — a questionnaire for health-related quality of life assessment in children. Zeitschrift Gesundheitpsychol 1994; II(1): 564-577.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Bullinger M. German translation and psychometric testing of the SF-36 Health Survey: preliminary results from the IQOLA project. Soc Science Med 1995 4(10): 1359-1366.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    McKinley RK, Cragg DK. Comparison of out of hours care provided by patients own general practitioners and commercial deputising services: a randomized controlled trial. II: The outcome of care. BMJ 1997; 314: 190-193.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Gibbons L, Mao Y, Levy IG, Miller AB. The Canadian Childhood Cancer Control Program. Can Med Assoc J 1994; 151(12): 1704-1709.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Hays RD, Hayashi T, Carson S, Ware JE. User's Guide for the Multitrait Analysis Program (MAP). Rand Corporation, 1988.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ware JE, Harris W, Gandek B, et al. MAP-R for Windows: User Manual. Boston: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1998.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 85-105.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Howard KL, Forehand GC. A method for correcting item-total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Educ Psychol Measure 1962: 22: 731.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient α and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297-334.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Helmsteader GC. Principles of Psychological Measurement. New York: Appleton-Centry-Crofts, Inc., 1964.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR. Psychometric Theory, 3rd edn. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Ware JE Jr, Karmos AH. Development and Validation of Scales to Measure Perceived Health and Patient Role Propensity: Volume II of a Final Report. Carbondale, IL, Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, 1976.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ware JE Jr, Davies-Avery A, Donald CA. Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study: Vol. V, General Health Perceptions. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation; 1978.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Ware JE Jr, Johnston SA, Davies-Avery A et al. Conceptualization and Measurement of Health for Adults in the Health Insurance Study: Vol. III, Mental Health. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1979.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, Torrance G. Multi-attribute Health Status Classification Systems: Health Utilities Index. Pharmacoeconomics 1995; 7(6): 490-502.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Chapman and Hall 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. Landgraf
    • 1
  • E. Maunsell
    • 2
  • K. Nixon Speechley
    • 3
    • 4
  • M. Bullinger
    • 5
  • S. Campbell
    • 6
  • L. Abetz
    • 1
  • J. E. Ware
    • 1
  1. 1.New England Medical CenterThe Health InstituteBostonUSA (J. M. Landgraf, L. Abetz, J. E. Ware)
  2. 2.HealthActBostonUSA
  3. 3.Epidemiology Research GroupUniversitéLavalCanada (E. Maunsell)
  4. 4.Child Health Research Institute and University of Western OntarioLondonCanada
  5. 5.Abteilung Für Medizinishe PsychologieUniversitatskrankenhaus EppendorfHamburgGermany
  6. 6.Rusholme Health Centre, Department of General PracticeUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations