4.4 Article

Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire in a Chronic Heart Failure population

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIOVASCULAR NURSING
Volume 7, Issue 3, Pages 214-221

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcnurse.2007.08.005

Keywords

Heart failure; Congestive; KCCQ; Psychometric properties; Symptoms; NYHA

Funding

  1. Swedish Research Council
  2. Heart/Lung Council
  3. Vardal Institute - the Swedish Institute for Health Sciences

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Valid assessments of health-related Quality of Life (HRQL) are increasingly important in chronic, incurable conditions, such as chronic heart failure (CHF). Aims: To evaluate the psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) in hospitalized patients with decompensated CHF. Method and results: The KCCQ and SF-36 were administered to patients (n = 118) with CHF at baseline and then 1 (n = 5 1) and 4 months (n = 83) after admission. The Swedish version of the KCCQ appears to have acceptable convergent and discriminant validity for all suggested health domains. Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability met for most of the scales the minimum of 0.70. Known-groups comparison indicated that the KCCQ discriminated between patients differing in the New York Heart Association (N-YHA) classification (criterion validity). The KCCQ was also more responsive to changes in the NYHA classification as compared with the SF-36. However, KCCQ has some weakness in the response distributions for two questions and the convergent validity in one question. Conclusion: Overall, the KCCQ is a valid and reliable instrument in a Swedish CHF population. It yields reliable and valid scores and is quite responsive to clinical change. (C) 2007 European Society of Cardiology. Published by Elsevier B.V All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available