4.3 Article

Comparing the Visual Analogue Scale and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory for Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Children with Oral Clefts

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph110404280

Keywords

oral clefts; quality of life; visual analogue scale; child development; birth defects

Funding

  1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control Prevention [R04/CCR224375]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To evaluate the performance of the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), in measuring overall health-related Quality of Life (HRQoL) in children with oral clefts relative to the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 (PedsQL(TM)) Generic Core Scales, one of the most validated and commonly used methods to measure pediatric HRQoL. Methods: The study included a population-based sample of 307 children aged 5 to 10 years who were born in Iowa, New York, and Arkansas with non-syndromic oral clefts. Data on HRQoL were obtained using a VAS and PedsQL(TM) via self-administered interviews with the parents. We evaluated the correlations between the VAS and PedsQL(TM) total scores, and the correlations of each of these two scales with a series of child health and wellbeing indicators. Results: The VAS and PedsQL(TM) scores were well-correlated (r = 0.67). There were no prominent differences between the correlations of VAS and PedsQL(TM) with the selected indicators of child health and wellbeing; differences in correlations were less than 0.1. Differences in HRQoL by cleft type were more pronounced on the PedsQL(TM). Conclusions: Our study finds the VAS to perform relatively well in measuring overall HRQoL among children with oral clefts. The VAS may be useful as a screening tool to identify children with oral clefts at risk of low HRQoL for referral into more comprehensive evaluations and for measuring average HRQoL across a sample of children.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available