Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 2, pp 311–320 | Cite as

Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life?

  • A.G.E.M. de Boer
  • J.J.B. van Lanschot
  • P.F.M. Stalmeier
  • J.W. van Sandick
  • J.B.F. Hulscher
  • J.C.J.M. de Haes
  • M.A.G. Sprangers
Article

Abstract

Purpose: To compare the validity, reliability and responsiveness of a single, global quality of life question to multi-item scales. Method: Data were obtained from 83 consecutive patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. Quality of life was measured at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 and 12 months post-operatively with a single-item Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100, the multi-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20 (MOS SF-20) and Rotterdam Symptom Check-List (RSCL). Convergent and discriminant validity, test–retest reliability and both distribution-based and anchor-based responsiveness were evaluated. Major findings: At baseline and at 5 weeks, the VAS showed high correlations with the MOS SF-20 health perceptions scale (r = 0.70 and 0.72) and moderate to high correlations with all other subscales of the MOS SF-20 and RSCL (r = 0.29–0.70). The test–retest reliability intra-class correlation for the VAS was 0.87. At 5 weeks post-operatively, the distribution-based responsiveness was moderate for the VAS (standardised response mean: −0.47; effect size: −0.56), high for the physical subscales of the MOS SF-20 and RSCL (−1.08 to −1.51) and low for the psychological subscales (0.11 to −0.25). Five weeks post-operatively, anchor-based responsiveness was highest for the VAS (r = 0.54). Conclusion: The VAS is an instrument with good validity, excellent reliability, moderate distribution-based responsiveness and good anchor-based responsiveness compared to multi-item questionnaires. Its use is recommended in clinical trials to assess global quality of life.

Oesophageal neoplasms Quality of life Questionnaires 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berzon RA. Understanding and using health-related quality of life instruments within clinical research studies. In: Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM (eds), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Langenhoff BS, Krabbe PFM, Wobbes T, Ruers TJM. Quality of life as an outcome measure in surgical oncology. Br J Surg 2001; 88: 643-652.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons, 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sloan JA, Aaronson NK, Cappelleri JC, Fairclough DL, Varricchio C. Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proc 2002; 77: 479-487.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gill TM. Quality of life assessment: Values and pitfalls. J Roy Soc Med 1995; 88: 680-682.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cunny KA, Perri M. Single-item vs. multi-item measures of quality of life. Psychol Rep 1991; 69: 127-130.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Patrick D, Bush J, Chen M. Methods for measuring levels of well-being for a health status index. Health Serv Res 1973; 8: 228-245.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Selby PJ, Chapman JA, Etazadi-Amoli J, Dalley D, Boyd NF. The development of a method for assessing the quality of life in cancer patients. Br J Cancer 1984; 50: 13-22.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gudex C, Dolan P, Kind P, Williams A. Health state valuations from the general public using the Visual Analogue Scale. Qual Life Res 1995; 5: 521-531.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schwenk W, Mall JW, Neudecker J, Muller JM. One visual analogue pain score is sufficient after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Br J Surg 2002; 89: 114-115.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kemler MA, Barendse GA, van Kleef M, et al. Spinal cord stimulation in patients with chronic reflex sympathetic dystrophy. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 618-624.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Andren-Sandberg A, Viste A, Horn A, Hoem D, Gislason H. Pain management of pancreatic cancer. Ann Oncol 1999; 10(Suppl.): 265-268.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    van Kampen M, de Weerdt W, van Poppel H, de Ridder D, Feys H, Baert L. Effect of pelvic-floor re-education on duration and degree of incontinence after radical prostatectomy: A randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2000; 355: 98-102.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    O'Bichere A, Wilkinson K, Rumbles S, Norton C, Green C, Phillips RK. Functional outcome after restorative panproctocolectomy for ulcerative colitis decreases an otherwise enhanced quality of life. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 802-807.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bernhard J, Sullivan M, Hürny C, Coates AS, Rudenstam C-M. Clinical relevance of single item quality of life indicators in cancer clinical trials. Br J Cancer 2001; 84: 1156-1165.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bessette L, Sangha O, Kuntz KM, et al. Comparative responsiveness of generic versus disease-specific and weighted versus unweighted health status measures in carpal tunnel syndrome. Med Care 1998; 36: 491-502.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sloan JA, Loprinzi CL, Kuross SA, et al. Randomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 3662-3673.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick D. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 142S-158S.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gardner DG, Cumming LL, Dunham RB, Pierce JL. Single-item versus multiple-item measurement scales: An empirical comparison. Educ Psychol Meas 1998; 58: 898-915.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fries JF, Ramey DR. ‘Arthritis specific’ global health analog scales assess ‘generic’ health related quality-of-life in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Rheumatol 1997; 24: 1697-1702.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Youngblut JM, Casper GR. Single-item indicators in nursing research. Res Nurs Health 1993; 16: 459-465.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fayers PM, Sprangers MAG. Understanding self-rated health. Lancet 2002; 359: 187-188.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Fischer D, Stewart AL, Bloch DA, Lorig K, Laurent D, Holman H. Capturing the patient's view of change as a clinical outcome measure. JAMA 1999; 282: 1157-1162.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS short-form General Health Survey. Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724-735.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kempen GIJM. The measurement of the health status of the elderly. A Dutch version of the MOS. Tijdsch Gerontol Geriat 1992; 23: 132-140.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    de Haes JCJM, van Knippenberg FCE, Neijt JP. Measuring psychological distress in cancer patients: Structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer 1990; 62: 1034-1038.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    de Boer AGEM, Onorbe Genovesi PI, Sprangers MAG, van Sandick JW, Obertop H, van Lanschot JJB. Quality of life in long-term survivors after curative transhiatal oesophagectomy for oesophageal carcinoma. Br J Surg 2000; 87: 1716-1721.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Juniper EF, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Epidemiol 1994; 47: 81-87.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Campbell DT, Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validity by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 1959; 56: 81-105.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Norman GR, Sridhar FG, Guyatt GH, Walter SD. Relation of distribution-and anchor-based approaches in interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life. Med Care 2001; 39: 1037-1038.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Norman GR, Stratford P, Regehr G. Methodological problems in the retrospective computation of responsiveness to change: The lesson of Cronbach. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 869-879.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • A.G.E.M. de Boer
    • 1
  • J.J.B. van Lanschot
    • 2
  • P.F.M. Stalmeier
    • 1
    • 3
    • 4
  • J.W. van Sandick
    • 2
  • J.B.F. Hulscher
    • 2
  • J.C.J.M. de Haes
    • 1
  • M.A.G. Sprangers
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical PsychologyAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryAcademic Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Radiotherapy/Nijmegen Institute Cognition and InformationUniversity Center NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.The Joint Center for Radiation Oncology Arnhem-Nijmegen (RADIAN)University Center NijmegenNijmegenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations