Cross-Cultural Validation of Quality of Life Measures

  • D. L. Patrick
  • D. J. Wild
  • E. S. Johnson
  • T. H. Wagner
  • M. A. Martin


Demand is increasing for quality of life measures available for cross-national comparison or aggregation of data across cultures. It is important, therefore, to ensure that an instrument developed in one culture is valid in another. To illustrate an approach to validation, we present a case study of the development of a cross-cultural, quality of life measure specific to genital herpes. The achievement of cross-cultural comparability requires attention to the following issues: 1) the content of the questionnaire and its conceptual basis, 2) the method of translation, and 3) the testing and comparison of reliability, validity, responsiveness, and effect size within each country or culture. In addition to methodological problems, practical considerations include communication difficulties among investigators and the additional expenses involved. Recruiting comparable samples of persons in different countries is also a major challenge to cross-cultural validation. Overcoming these problems will require a higher level of cooperation and coordination between countries. Such studies are lengthy and expensive, requiring commitment of resources and time for the development of valid, reliable, and responsive cross-cultural quality of life measures.


Herpes Simplex Virus Type Life Measure Genital Herpes Cognitive Debriefing Community Satisfaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aday LA (1989) Designing and Conducting Health Surveys. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  2. Bardo JW, Hughey JB (1984) The structure of community satisfaction in a British and an American community. J Social Psychol 124(2): 151–157CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Campbell DT, Fiske DW (1959) Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychol Bull 56: 85–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Corey L (1989) Genital herpes. In: Holmes K (ed). Sexually transmitted diseases. New York, McGraw-Hill Information Services CompanyGoogle Scholar
  5. Del Greco L, Walop W, Eastridge L (1987) Questionnaire Development 3. Translation. Can Med Assoc 136: 817–818Google Scholar
  6. DeVellis RF (1991) Scale Development: Theory and Application. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 26. Newbury Park, London, New Delhi, Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  7. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Controlled Clin Trials. 12: 142S-158SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fabrega H (1974) Disease and social behavior: an interdisciplinary perspective. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology PressGoogle Scholar
  9. Fleming JS, Courtney BE (1984) The dimensionality of self-esteem: II. Hierarchial facet model for revised measurement scales. J Personality Social Psych 46(2): 404–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Guinot P, Wesnes K (1985) A quality of life scale for the elderly: validation by factor analysis. IRCS Med Sci Psychol Psychiat 13: 9–10Google Scholar
  11. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G (1987) Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chronic Dis 40(2): 171–178PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A (1989) Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 42(5): 403–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hunt SM (1993) Cross-cultural comparability of quality of life measures. Drug Info J 1993; 27: 395–400Google Scholar
  14. Hunt SM, McKenna S (1992) The QLDS: A scale for the measurement of quality of life in depression. Health Policy 22: 307–319PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jaeschke R, Singer J, Guyatt GH (1989) Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trial 10: 407–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jobe JB, Mingay DJ (1989) Cognitive research improves questionnaires. Am J Public Health. 79(8): 1053–1055PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kazis LE, Anderson JJ, Meenan RF (1989) Effect sizes for interpreting changes in health status. Med Care 27 (3 suppl):S178-S189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B (1978) Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Int Med 88: 251–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lydick E, Epstein RS (1993) Interpretation of quality of life changes. Quality Life Res 2(3): 221–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Nahmias AJ, Lee FK, Beckman-Nahmias S (1990) Sero-epidemiological and sociological patterns of herpes simplex virus infection in the world. Scand J Infect Dis Suppl 69: 19–36PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd ed. New York, McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
  22. Patrick DL, Erickson P (1993) Health status and health policy: allocating resources to health care. New York, Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  23. Sartorius N (1993) A WHO method for the assessment of health-related quality of life (WHOQOL). In: Walker SR and Rosser RM (eds). Quality of life assessment: key issues in the 1990’s. Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 201–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sherbourne CD, Meredith LS (1992) Quality of self-report data: a comparison of older and younger chronically ill patients. J Gerontol Social Sci 47 (4):S204-S211Google Scholar
  25. Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds) (1992) Measuring functioning and well-being. The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham and London, Duke University PressGoogle Scholar
  26. Testa MA, Anderson RB, Nackley JF, Hollenberg NK (1993) Quality of life and antihypertensive therapy in men: a comparison of Captopril with Enalapril. New Engl J Med 328(13): 907–913PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ware JE (1987) Standards for validating health measures: definition and content. J Chronic Dis 40(6): 473–480PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Wellcome Dialog (1992) Informational Booklet on Genital Herpes. Burroughs Welcome COGoogle Scholar
  29. WHOQOL Group (1993) Study protocol for the World Health Organization project to develop a Quality of Life Instrument (WHOQOL). Quality Life Res 2: 153–159CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • D. L. Patrick
  • D. J. Wild
  • E. S. Johnson
  • T. H. Wagner
  • M. A. Martin

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations