Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 531–540 | Cite as

Quality of life in the Danish general population – normative data and validity of WHOQOL-BREF using Rasch and item response theory models

  • V. Noerholm
  • M. Groenvold
  • T. Watt
  • J.B. Bjorner
  • N.-A. Rasmussen
  • P. Bech
Article

Abstract

Background: The main objective of this study was to investigate the construct validity of the WHOQOL-BREF by use of Rasch and Item Response Theory models and to examine the stability of the model across high/low scoring individuals, gender, education, and depressive illness. Furthermore, the objective of the study was to estimate the reference data for the quality of life questionnaire WHOQOL-BREF in the general Danish population and in subgroups defined by age, gender, and education. Methods: Mail-out-mail-back questionnaires were sent to a randomly selected sample of the Danish general population. The response rate was 68.5%, and the sample reported here contained 1101 respondents: 578 women and 519 men (four respondents did not indicate their genders). Results: Each of the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF scale fitted a two-parameter IRT model, but did not fit the Rasch model. Due to multidimensionality, the total score of 26 items fitted neither model. Regression analysis was carried out, showing a level of explained variance of between 10 and 14%. The mean scores of the WHOQOL-BREF are reported as normative data for the general Danish population. Conclusion: The profile of the four WHOQOL-BREF domains is a more adequate expression of quality of life than the total score of all 26 items. Although none of the subscales are statistically sufficient measures of their domains, the profile scores seem to be adequate approximations to the optimal score.

General population norms Metric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF Quality of life Rasch analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    WHOQOL Group. Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of life assessment instrument (WHOQOL). Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 153-159.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    WHOQOL Group. Development of the WHOQOL: Rationale and current status. Int J Ment Health 1994; 23: 24-56.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    WHOQOL Group. The development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (the WHOQOL). In: Orley J, Kuyken W (eds), Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994: 41-57.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med 1995; 41: 1403-1409.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Orley J, Kuyken W (eds), Quality of Life Assessment: International Perspectives, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Szabo S, On behalf of the WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Assessment Instrument. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed., New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996; 355-362.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med 1998; 46: 1569-1585.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Power M, Harper A, Bullinger M. The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: Test of the universality of quality of life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health Psychol 1999; 18: 495-505.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Noerholm V, Bech P. The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Questionnaire: Danish validation study. Nord J Psychiatry 2001; 55: 229-235.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychol Med 1998; 28: 551-558.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bech P, Rasmussen NA, Raabaek Olsen L, Noerholm V, Abildgaard W. The sensitivity and specificity of the major depression inventory, using the present state examination as the index of diagnostic validity. Affect Disord 2001; 66: 159-160.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Skevington SM, Tucker C. Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: Data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. BJM Psychol 1999; 72: 51-61.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harper A, Power M. WHOQOL User manual. Edinburgh, 1999.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bech P. Rating Scales for Psychopathology, Health Status, and Quality of Life. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1993: 9-13.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment test. Danish Institute for Educational Research, 1960 (Reprinted by University Chicago Press, Chicago 1980).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verhelst P. One Parameter Logistic Model: OPLM. Arnhem, The Netherlands: Cito, 1995.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Allerup P. Rasch Measurement, Theory Of. In: Husén T, Postlethwaite TN (eds), The International Encyclopedia of Education, 2nd ed. London: Pergamon, 1994: 4902-4913.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Allerup P. The Rasch Analysis of Individual Items. Danish Institute for Educational Research, University of Copenhagen, 1991.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Olsen LR, Noerholm V, Rasmussen NA, et al. Major depression and psychological well-being in the general Danish population. Eur Psychiatry 2000; 15: 388.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Andersen EB. Models for Measurement (Thesis). Mentalhygiejnisk Institut. Copenhagen, 1984.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Allerup P. Applications of Latent Trait and Latent Class Models in the Social Sciences. In: Rost J, Langeheine R (eds), Statistical Analyses of data from the iEA Reading Literacy Study, Waxman, 1997.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mokken RJ. A Theory and Procedure of Scale Analysis. Paris: Mouton, 1971.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    European Rating Aggression Group (ERAG). Social dysfunction and aggression scale (SDAS-21) in generalised aggression and in aggressive attacks: A validity and reliability study. Int J Meth Psychiatr Res 1992; 2: 15-29.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Molenaar IW, Debets P, Sijtsma K, Hember BT. User's manual MSP: A program for Mokken Scale Analysis for Polytomous Items (version 3.0). iec ProGamma. Groningen, 1994.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lord F, Novick M. Statistical Theories of Mental Test Scores. London: Addison and Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    O'Carroll RE, Smith K, Couston M, Cossar JA, Hayes PC. A comparison of the WHOQOL-100 and the WHOQOL-BREF in detecting change in quality of life following liver transplantation. Qual Life Res 2000; 9: 121-124.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Warner H. Estimating coefficients in linear models: it do not make no nevermind. Psychol Bull 1976; 83: 213-217.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Andersen EB. Polytomous Rasch Models and their Estimation. In: Fischer GH, Molenaar IW (eds), Rasch Models — Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995; 271-305.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial Credit scoring. Psykometrika 1982; 47: 149-174.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ware JE Jr, Keller SD. Interpreting general health measures. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd ed. New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996: 445-460.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Groenvold M, Fayers PM, Sprangers MAG, et al. Anxiety and depression in breast cancer patients at low risk of recurrence compared with the general population: A valid comparison? Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 523-530.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Sprangers MA, Schwartz CE. Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1507-1515.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Skevington SM. Measuring quality of life in Britain: Introducing the WHOQOL-100. J Psychosom Res 1999; 47: 449-459.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bonomi AE, Patrick DL, Bushnell DM, Martin M. Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument. J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 1-12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • V. Noerholm
    • 1
  • M. Groenvold
    • 2
  • T. Watt
    • 2
  • J.B. Bjorner
    • 2
  • N.-A. Rasmussen
    • 3
  • P. Bech
    • 1
  1. 1.Psychiatric Research UnitHilleroedDenmark
  2. 2.Institute of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Psychiatric InstituteAarhusDenmark

Personalised recommendations