4.4 Article

The PedsQL™ -: Reliability and validity of the short-form generic core scales and asthma module

期刊

MEDICAL CARE
卷 43, 期 3, 页码 256-265

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00008

关键词

asthma; children; adolescents; health-related quality of life; PedsQL (TM)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: We sought to assess the reliability and validity of the PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF15, a shortened version of the 23-item PedsQL(TM) 4.0 Generic Core Scales, which is a pediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument, and the PedsQL(TM) 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module, a short-form of the PedsQL(TM) 3.0 Asthma Module. Methods: The PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF15 and the PedsQL(TM) 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module were administered by telephone to 125 adolescents (aged 12-18) and 338 parents of children with asthma (aged 2-11). Healthy (n = 451) and chronically ill (n = 422) children, matched by age, respondent status, and ethnicity to the asthma sample, provided data for selected validity tests. Results: The Total Score from the PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF15 and the Asthma Symptoms scale and Treatment Problems scale from the PedsQL(TM) 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module were sufficiently reliable for group comparisons (alpha greater than or equal to 0.70 across all age groups) in the asthma sample. The PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF15 and the PedsQL(TM) 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module were able to distinguish between children of different clinical status and correlated as expected with measures of productivity and family functioning in the asthma sample. The psychometric properties of the PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF15 were generally comparable to those of the original instrument. Conclusion: The Total Score of the PedsQL(TM) 4.0 SF15 and the Asthma Symptoms scale of the PedsQL(TM) 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module demonstrated the best reliability and validity and should be suitable for group-level comparisons of generic and asthma-specific HRQoL in clinical research studies of children with asthma.

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

4.4
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