» Articles » PMID: 12074258

Assessing Health Status and Quality-of-life Instruments: Attributes and Review Criteria

Overview
Journal Qual Life Res
Date 2002 Jun 21
PMID 12074258
Citations 753
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The field of health status and quality of life (QoL) measurement - as a formal discipline with a cohesive theoretical framework, accepted methods, and diverse applications--has been evolving for the better part of 30 years. To identify health status and QoL instruments and review them against rigorous criteria as a precursor to creating an instrument library for later dissemination, the Medical Outcomes Trust in 1994 created an independently functioning Scientific Advisory Committee (SAC). In the mid-1990s, the SAC defined a set of attributes and criteria to carry out instrument assessments; 5 years later, it updated and revised these materials to take account of the expanding theories and technologies upon which such instruments were being developed. This paper offers the SAC's current conceptualization of eight key attributes of health status and QoL instruments (i.e., conceptual and measurement model; reliability; validity; responsiveness; interpretability; respondent and administrative burden; alternate forms; and cultural and language adaptations) and the criteria by which instruments would be reviewed on each of those attributes. These are suggested guidelines for the field to consider and debate; as measurement techniques become both more familiar and more sophisticated, we expect that experts will wish to update and refine these criteria accordingly.

Citing Articles

Enhancing HRQoL assessment for economic evaluation in dementia populations.

Hussain H, Keetharuth A, Wailoo A, Rowen D Alzheimers Dement (N Y). 2025; 11(1):e70061.

PMID: 40065915 PMC: 11891564. DOI: 10.1002/trc2.70061.


Reliability, validity, and diagnostic accuracy of the apathy evaluation scale in chronic stroke survivors.

Jamali A, Baluchnejadmojarad T, Jazaeri S, Abedi S, Mehdizadeh H, Sharabiani P BMC Psychiatry. 2025; 25(1):201.

PMID: 40045280 PMC: 11881398. DOI: 10.1186/s12888-025-06626-5.


Psychometric properties and meaningful change thresholds for the QOL-E instrument in patients with myelodysplastic neoplasms.

Oliva E, Guo S, Lord-Bessen J, Yucel A, Latagliata R, Breccia M Front Oncol. 2025; 15:1507854.

PMID: 39990686 PMC: 11842348. DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2025.1507854.


Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals.

Amat-Fernandez C, Pardo Y, Ferrer M, Bosch G, Lizano-Barrantes C, Briseno-Diaz R Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2025; 23(1):15.

PMID: 39962425 PMC: 11834580. DOI: 10.1186/s12955-025-02333-7.


Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used among liver transplant recipients: a systematic review and methodological quality appraisal.

Zhang Q, Chen X, Kang Y, Yu J, Zhang Y Qual Life Res. 2025; .

PMID: 39831937 DOI: 10.1007/s11136-025-03893-3.


References
1.
Lohr K . Health outcomes methodology symposium: summary and recommendations. Med Care. 2000; 38(9 Suppl):II194-208. DOI: 10.1097/00005650-200009002-00031. View

2.
Bland J, Altman D . Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986; 1(8476):307-10. View

3.
Bjorner J, Kreiner S, Ware J, Damsgaard M, Bech P . Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998; 51(11):1189-202. DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00111-5. View

4.
Reise S, Widaman K, Pugh R . Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychol Bull. 1993; 114(3):552-566. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552. View

5.
McHorney C, TARLOV A . Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate?. Qual Life Res. 1995; 4(4):293-307. DOI: 10.1007/BF01593882. View