Quality of Life Research

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 209–224 | Cite as

The Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument: a psychometric measure of Health-Related Quality of Life

  • Graeme Hawthorne
  • Jeff Richardson
  • Richard Osborne


This paper describes constructing the Assessment of Quality of Life (AQoL) instrument; designed to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and to be the descriptive system for a multi-attribute utility instrument. Unlike previous utility instruments' descriptive systems, the AQoL's has been developed using state-of-the-art psychometric procedures. The result is a descriptive system which emphasizes five different facets of HRQoL and which can claim to have construct validity. Based on the WHO's definition of health a model of HRQoL was developed. Items were written by focus groups of doctors and the researchers. These were administered to a construction sample, comprising hospital patients, and community members chosen at random. Final construction was through an iterative process of factor and reliability analyses. The AQoL measures 5 dimensions: illness, independent living, social relationships, physical senses and psychological wellbeing. Each has three items. Exploratory factor analysis showed the dimensions were orthogonal, and each was unidimensional. Internal consistency was α = 0.81. Structural equation modeling explored its internal structure; the comparative fit index was 0.90. These preliminary results indicate the AQoL has the prerequisite qualities for a psychometric HRQoL instrument for evaluation; replication with a larger sample is needed to verify these findings. Scaling it for economic evaluation using utilities is being undertaken. Respondents have indicated the AQoL is easy to understand and is quickly completed. Its initial properties suggest it may be widely applicable.

Economic value of life Evaluation studies Health status indicators Psychometrics Quality of life 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Nordenfelt L (ed). Concepts and Measurement of Quality of Life in Health Care. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1994.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Torrance G. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal: a review. Journal of Health Eco-nomics. 1986; 5: 1±30.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murray C, Lopez A. The Global Burden of Disease. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1996.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cronbach J, Meehl P. Construct validity in psycho-logical tests. Psychological Bulletin. 1955; 52(4): 281±302.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rosser R. A health index and output measure. In: Walker S, Rosser R (Eds). Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kind P, Rosser R. The quali®cation of health. European Journal of Social Psychology. 1988; 18: 63±77.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kaplan R, Bush J, Berry C. Health status: types of validity and the Index of Well-being. Health Services Research. 1976; 11(4): 478±507.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaplan R, Bush J. Health-related quality of life mea-surement for evaluation research and policy analysis. Health Psychology. 1982; 1: 61±80.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaplan R, Anderson J, Ganiats T. The Quality of Well-Being Scale: rationale for a single quality of life index. In: Walker S, Rosser R (Eds). Quality of Life Assess-ment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Ac-ademic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Torrance G, Zhang Y, Feeny D, Furlong W, Barr R. Multi-attribute preference functions for a comprehen-sive health status classi®cation system. Working Paper 92±18. Hamilton, Ontario: CHEPA, 1992.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boyle M, Furlong W, Feeny D, Torrance G, Hatcher J. Reliability of the Health Utilities Index-mark III used in the 1991 cycle 6 Canadian general social survey health questionnaire. Quality of Life Research. 1995; 4: 249±257.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Torrance G, Furlong W, Feeny D, Boyle M. Multi-attribute preference functions: health utilities index. PharmacoEconomics. 1995; 7(6): 503±520.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Feeny D, Torrance G, Furlong W. Health utilities in-dex. In: Spilker B (ed). Quality of Life and Pharmaco-economics in clinical trials, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sintonen H. An approach to measuring and valuing health states. Social Science and Medicine. 1981; 15: 55±65.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sintonen H, Pekurinen M. A ®fteen-dimensional mea-sure of health-related quality of life (15D) and its ap-plications. In: Walker S, Rosser R (Eds). Quality of Life Assessment. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life: reliability, validity and sensitivity of its health state descriptive system. Working Paper 41. Mel-bourne: National Centre for Health Program Evalua-tion, 1994.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sintonen H. The 15D measure of health-related quality of life: feasibility, reliability and validity of its valuation system. Working Paper 42. Melbourne: National Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    EuroQoLGroup. EuroQoL ± a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy. 1990; 16: 199±208.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gudex C. EuroQoL state valuations from the general population: the visual analogue method. Health Econ-omists Study Group. Newcastle, 6±8July, 1994.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Van Agt H, Essink-Bot M-L, Krabbe P, Bonsel G. Test-retest reliability of health state valuations collected with the EuroQol questionnaire. Social Science and Medicine. 1994; 39(11): 1537±1544.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Williams A. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: A Chronicle. Discussion Paper 136. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1995.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Drummond M, Stoddart G, Torrance G. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nord E, Richardson J, Macarounas-Kirchmann K. Social evaluation of health care versus personal evalu-ation of health states. Evidence on the validity of four health-state scaling instruments using Norwegian and Australian surveys. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 1993; 9(4): 463±78.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Feeny D, Furlong W, Boyle M, G T. Multi-attribute health status classi®cation systems. PharmacoEconomics. 1995; 7(6): 489±502.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Drummond M. Economic evaluation and the rational di.usion and use of health technology. Health Policy. 1987; 7: 309±324.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    MVHGroup. The Measurement and Valuation of Health: Final Modelling of Valuation Tari.s. York: Centre for Health Economics, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gescheider G. Psychophysical Scaling. Am. Rev. Psy-chol. 1988; 39: 169±200.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Richardson J. Cost utility analysis: what should be measured? Social Science and Medicine. 1994; 39(1): 7±21.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fava J, Velicer W, Rossi J. Procedures for developing quality measures. Fourth International Conference of Behaviour Medicine. Washington, 1996.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Juniper E, Guyatt G, Jaeschke R. How to develop and validate a new health-related quality of life instrument. In: Spilker B (ed). Quality of Life and Pharmacoeco-nomics, 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Pub-lishers, 1996.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Theobald J. Writing the test item. Classroom Testing: Principles and Practice. Melbourne: Longman Hall, 1974.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Foddy W. Constructing Questions for Interviews and Questionnaires: Theory and Practice in Social Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guadagnoli E, Velicer W. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin. 1988; 103(2): 265±275.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    WHO. The First Ten Years of the World Health Or-ganization. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1958.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guyatt G, Feeny D, Patrick D. Measuring health-re-lated quality of life. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1993; 118: 622±629.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    WHO. International Classi®cation of Impairments, Disabilities and Handicaps. Geneva: World Health Organization, 1980.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Bergner M, Bobbit R, Carter W, Gilson B. The Sickness Impact Pro®le; development and revision of a health status measure. Medical Care. 1981; 19: 787±805.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Bergner M. Development, testing and use of the Sick-ness Impact Pro®le. In: Walker S, Rosser R (Eds). Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kaplan R, Ganiats T, Sieber W, Anderson J. The Quality of Well-being Scale. Medical Outcomes Trust Bulletin. 1996: 2±3.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dolan P, Gudex C, Kind P, Williams A. Social Tari. for EUROQoL: Results from a UK General Population Survey. Discussion Paper 138. York: Centre for Health Economics, University of York, 1995.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Goldberg D. The General Health Questionnaire. In: McDowell I, Newell C, eds, Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gurel L. Mental and physical impairment-of-function evaluation in the aged: the PAMIE scale. J. Gerontol. 1972; 27: 83±90.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hunt S, McKenna S, McEwen J. The Nottingham health pro®le user's manual. Manchester: Galen Re-search & Consultancies, 1989.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Jette A. Functional status index: reliability of a chronic disease evaluation instrument. Arch. Phys. Med. Re-habil. 1980; 61: 395±401.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Chambers L. The McMaster Health Index Question-naire. Hamilton: McMaster University, 1982.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Meenan R, Gertman P, Mason J. Measuring health status in arthritis: the Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Arthritis Rheum. 1980; 23: 146±152.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fillenbaum G, Smyer M. The development, validity and reliability of the OARS Multidimensional Func-tional Assessment Questionnaire. J. Gerontol. 1981; 36: 428±434.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Rosser R, Kind P. A scale of valuations of states of illness: is there a social consensus. International Journal of Epidemiology. 1978; 7: 4±15.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M, Gandek B. SF-36 health survey: manual and interpretation guide. Bos-ton: The Health Institute, New England Medical Centre, 1993.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    McDowell I, Newell C (Eds). Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Walker S, Rosser R. Quality of life assessment: key is-sues in the 1990s. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Pub-lishers, 1993.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bowling A. Measuring Health: A Review of Quality of Life Measurement Scales. Milton Keynes: Open Uni-versity, 1991.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    WHO. Measuring Quality of Life. Geneva: World Health Organization; Division of Mental Health, 1993.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Winterfeldt DV, Edwards W. Decision analysis and behavioural research. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-sity Press, 1986.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Rummel R. Applied factor analysis. Evanston: 1970.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Anastasi A. Psychological Testing, 4th ed. New York: Macmillan Publishing, 1976.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hawthorne G, McNeil H, Osborne R, Richardson J. Endpoints: Issues in the Meaning of 'Good Health' in Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement. Melbourne: Centre for Health Program Evaluation, 1998.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Cummins R. The comprehensive quality of life scale: theory and development. In: Sansoni J (ed). Proceed-ings Health Outcomes and Quality of Life Measure-ment Conference. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 1995: 18±24.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    McArdle J. Current directions in structural factor analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science. 1996; 5(1): 11±18.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Pedhazur E, Schmelkin L. Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1991.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Bagozzi R, Heatherton T. A general approach to rep-resenting multifaceted personality constructs: applica-tion to state self-esteem. Structural Equation Modelling. 1994; 1(1): 35±67.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Graeme Hawthorne
    • 1
  • Jeff Richardson
    • 2
  • Richard Osborne
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Department of Public Health and Community MedicineThe University of MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Centre for Health Program EvaluationMonash UniversityAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Public Health and Community MedicineThe University of MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations