Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for general use in New Zealand: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis

  • Brief Communication
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The present study validated the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire for general use in New Zealand.

Methods

A random postal sample from the national electoral roll was used, and 808 questionnaires were returned. Psychometric properties of the instrument were assessed, including tests of the four-domain factor structure using confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis.

Results

Goodness-of-fit from the confirmatory factor analysis were good, and the overall conclusion of the Rasch analysis supported the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) findings after dealing with problems of threshold ordering, local dependency, and differential item functioning (DIF).

Conclusions

The WHOQOL-BREF is valid for general use in New Zealand. In the future work, the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores should either be analyzed using non-parametric statistics or data should be fitted to the Rasch model to derive interval person estimates.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Abbreviations

HRQOL:

Health-related quality of life

WHOQOL:

World Health Organization Quality of Life

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

DIF:

Differential item functioning

References

  1. Billington, R., Landon, J., Krägeloh, C. U., & Shepherd, D. (2010). The New Zealand WHOQOL Group. New Zealand Medical Journal, 123(1315), 65–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Power, M., Bullinger, M., Harper, A., & The WHOQOL Group. (1999). The World Health Organization WHOQOL-100: Tests of the universality of quality of life in 15 different cultural groups worldwide. Health Psychology, 18(5), 495–505. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.18.5.495.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science and Medicine, 41(10), 1403–1409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bowden, A., & Fox-Rushby, J. A. (2003). A systematic and critical review of the process of translation and adaptation of generic health-related quality of life measures in Africa, Asia, Eastern Europe, the Middle East, South America. Social Science and Medicine, 57(7), 1289–1306. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00503-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. WHOQOL Group. (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551–558.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, K. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 299–310. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Chai, P. P. M., Krägeloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2012). Stress and quality of life in international and domestic university students: Cultural differences in the use of religious coping. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 15(3), 265–277. doi:10.1080/13674676.2011.571665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Henning, M. A., Krägeloh, C. U., Sameshima, S., Shepherd, D., Shepherd, G., & Billington, R. (2011). Access to New Zealand sign language interpreters and quality of life of the deaf: A pilot study. Disability and Rehabilitation, 33(25–26), 2559–2566. doi:10.3109/09638288.2011.579225.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hsu, P. H.-C., Krägeloh, C. U., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2009). Religion/spirituality and quality of life of international tertiary students in New Zealand: An exploratory study. Mental Health, Religion, and Culture, 12(4), 385–399. doi:10.1080/13674670902752920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Keogh, J. W. L., Shepherd, D., Krägeloh, C. U., Ryan, C., Masters, J., Shepherd, G., et al. (2010). Predictors of physical activity and quality of life in New Zealand prostate cancer survivors undergoing androgen-deprivation therapy. New Zealand Medical Journal, 123(1325), 20–29.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Taylor, W. J., Myers, J., Simpson, R. T., McPherson, K. M., & Weatherall, M. (2004). Quality of life of people with rheumatoid arthritis as measured by the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument, short form (WHOQOL-BREF): Score distributions and psychometric properties. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 51(3), 350–357. doi:10.1002/art.20398.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Murphy, B., Herrman, H., Hawthorne, G., Pinzone, T., & Evert, H. (2000). Australian WHOQoL instruments: User’s manual and interpretation guide. Melbourne: Australian WHOQoL Field Study Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Statistics New Zealand (2006). http://www.stats.govt.nz/Census/2006CensusHomePage/classification-counts-tables/about-people/age.aspx.

  14. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). LISREL 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Andrich, D., Sherridan, B., & Luo, G. (2009). RUMM2030. Perth: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). New developments in LISREL: Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality and Quantity, 24(4), 387–404. doi:10.1007/BF00152012.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Rasch, G. (1960/1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests (revised and expanded ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

  19. Goodwin, L. D., & Goodwin, W. L. (1991). Focus on psychometrics. Estimating construct validity. Research in Nursing and Health, 14(3), 235–243.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Andrich, D. (1988). Rasch models for measurement series: Quantitative applications in the social sciences no. 68. London: Sage Publications.

  21. Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model. Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Kersten, P., & Kayes, N. M. (2011). Outcome measurement and the use of Rasch analysis, a statistics-free introduction. New Zealand Journal of Physiotherapy, 39(2), 92–99.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Tennant, A., & Conaghan, P. G. (2007). The Rasch measurement model in rheumatology: What is it and why use it? When should it be applied, and what should one look for in a Rasch paper? Arthritis Care and Research, 57(8), 1358–1362. doi:10.1002/art.23108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Wainer, H., & Kiely, G. L. (1987). Item clusters and computerized adaptive testing: A case for testlets. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24(3), 185–202. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3984.1987.tb00274.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smith, A. B., Rush, R., Fallowfield, L. J., Velikova, G., & Sharpe, M. (2008). Rasch fit statistics and sample size considerations for polytomous data. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Linacre, J. M. (1994). Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 7(4), 328.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Jaracz, K., Kalfoss, M., Górna, K., & Bączyk, G. (2006). Quality of life in Polish respondents: Psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL-BREF. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 20(3), 251–260. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2006.00401.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yao, G., Wang, J.-D., & Chung, C.-W. (2007). Cultural adaptation of the WHOQOL questionnaire for Taiwan. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 106(7), 592–597. doi:10.1016/S0929-6646(07)60012-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Xia, P., Li, N., Hau, K.-T., Liu, C., & Lu, Y. (2012). Quality of life of Chinese urban community residents: A psychometric study of the mainland Chinese version of the WHOQOL-BREF. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 12, 37. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika, 43(4), 561–573. doi:10.1007/BF02293814.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Pallant, J. F., & Tennant, A. (2007). An introduction to the Rasch measurement model: An example using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 46(1), 1–18. doi:10.1348/014466506X96931.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. da Rocha, N. S., & Fleck, M. P. d. A. (2009). Validity of the Brazilian version of WHOQOL-BREF in depressed patients using Rasch modelling. Revista De Saúde Pública, 43(1), 147–153. doi:10.1590/S0034-89102009000100019.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Liang, W.-M., Chang, C.-H., Yeh, Y.-C., Shy, H.-Y., Chen, H.-W., & Lin, M.-R. (2009). Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF in community-dwelling older people in Taiwan using Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research, 18, 605–618. doi:10.1007/s11136-009-9471-5.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Noerholm, V., Groenvold, M., Watt, T., Bjorner, J. B., Rasmussen, N.-A., & Bech, P. (2004). Quality of life in the Danish general population—normative data and validity of WHOQOL-BREF using Rasch and item response theory models. Quality of Life Research, 13(2), 531–540. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000018485.05372.d6.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Wang, W.-C., Yao, G., Tsai, Y.-J., Wang, J.-D., & Hsieh, C.-L. (2006). Validating, improving reliability, and estimating correlation of the four subscales in the WHOQOL-BREF using multidimensional Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research, 15(4), 607–620. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-4365-7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Marais, I., & Andrich, D. (2008). Effects of varying magnitude and patterns of response dependence in the unidimensional Rasch model. Journal of Applied Measurement, 9(2), 105–124.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Wang, W.-C., Chen, P.-H., & Cheng, Y.-Y. (2004). Improving measurement precision of test batteries using multidimensional item response models. Psychological Methods, 9(1), 116–136. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.9.1.116.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Andrich, D. (2004). Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Medical Care, 42(1), I7–I16. doi:10.1097/01.mlr.0000103528.48582.7c.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Edwards, P., Roberts, I., Clarke, M., DiGuiseppi, C., Pratap, S., Wentz, R., et al. (2002). Increasing response rate to postal questionnaires: Systematic review. BMJ, 324, 1–9. doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Krägeloh, C. U., Henning, M. A., Hawken, S. J., Zhao, Y., Shepherd, D., & Billington, R. (2011). Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for use with medical students. Education for Health, 24(2), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Li, K., Kay, N. S., & Nokkaew, N. (2009). The performance of the World Health Organizations’s WHOQOL-BREF in assessing the quality of life of Thai college students. Social Indicators Research, 90(3), 489–501. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9272-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was funded by the Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences of AUT University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, North Shore Campus, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Christian U. Krägeloh, D. Rex Billington, Patricia Hsien-Chuan Hsu, Daniel Shepherd, Jason Landon & Xuan Joanna Feng

  2. Person Centred Research Centre, School of Rehabilitation and Occupation Studies, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Private Bag 92006, Auckland, 1142, New Zealand

    Paula Kersten

Authors
  1. Christian U. Krägeloh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Paula Kersten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. Rex Billington
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Patricia Hsien-Chuan Hsu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Daniel Shepherd
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jason Landon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Xuan Joanna Feng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christian U. Krägeloh.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krägeloh, C.U., Kersten, P., Rex Billington, D. et al. Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for general use in New Zealand: confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 22, 1451–1457 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0265-9

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0265-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation