4.5 Article

Testing the structural and cross-cultural validity of the KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire

期刊

QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH
卷 16, 期 8, 页码 1335-1345

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11136-007-9241-1

关键词

cross-cultural equivalence; health-related quality of life; item response theory; pediatric; questionnaire

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Ojectives The aim of this study is to assess the structural and cross-cultural validity of the KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire. Methods The 27-item version of the KIDSCREEN instrument was derived from a longer 52-item version and was administered to young people aged 8-18 years in 13 European countries in a cross-sectional survey. Structural and cross-cultural validity were tested using multitrait multi-item analysis, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, and Rasch analyses. Zumbo's logistic regression method was applied to assess differential item functioning (DIF) across countries. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha. Results Responses were obtained from n = 22,827 respondents (response rate 68.9%). For the combined sample from all countries, exploratory factor analysis with procrustean rotations revealed a five-factor structure which explained 56.9% of the variance. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable model fit (RMSEA = 0.068, CFI = 0.960). The unidimensionality of all dimensions was confirmed (INFIT: 0.81-1.15). Differential item functioning (DIF) results across the 13 countries showed that 5 items presented uniform DIF whereas 10 displayed non-uniform DIF. Reliability was acceptable (Cronbach's alpha= 0.78-0.84 for individual dimensions). Conclusions There was substantial evidence for the cross-cultural equivalence of the KIDSCREEN-27 across the countries studied and the factor structure was highly replicable in individual countries. Further research is needed to correct scores based on DIF results. The KIDSCREEN-27 is a new short and promising tool for use in clinical and epidemiological studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据