Cross-cultural validity of four quality of life scales in persons with spinal cord injury.
BACKGROUND
Quality of life (QoL) in persons with spinal cord injury (SCI) has been found to differ across countries. However, comparability of measurement results between countries depends on the cross-cultural validity of the applied instruments. The study examined the metric quality and cross-cultural validity of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS), the Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LISAT-9), the Personal Well-Being Index (PWI) and the 5-item World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQoL-5) across six countries in a sample of persons with spinal cord injury (SCI).


METHODS
A cross-sectional multi-centre study was conducted and the data of 243 out-patients with SCI from study centers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Israel, South Africa, and the United States were analyzed using Rasch-based methods.


RESULTS
The analyses showed high reliability for all 4 instruments (person reliability index .78-.92). Unidimensionality of measurement was supported for the WHOQoL-5 (Chi2 = 16.43, df = 10, p = .088), partially supported for the PWI (Chi2 = 15.62, df = 16, p = .480), but rejected for the LISAT-9 (Chi2 = 50.60, df = 18, p = .000) and the SWLS (Chi2 = 78.54, df = 10, p = .000) based on overall and item-wise Chi2 tests, principal components analyses and independent t-tests. The response scales showed the expected ordering for the WHOQoL-5 and the PWI, but not for the other two instruments. Using differential item functioning (DIF) analyses potential cross-country bias was found in two items of the SWLS and the WHOQoL-5, three items of the LISAT-9 and four items of the PWI. However, applying Rasch-based statistical methods, especially subtest analyses, it was possible to identify optimal strategies to enhance the metric properties and the cross-country equivalence of the instruments post-hoc. Following the post-hoc procedures the WHOQOL-5 and the PWI worked in a consistent and expected way in all countries.


CONCLUSIONS
QoL assessment using the summary scores of the WHOQOL-5 and the PWI appeared cross-culturally valid in persons with SCI. In contrast, summary scores of the LISAT-9 and the SWLS have to be interpreted with caution. The findings of the current study can be especially helpful to select instruments for international research projects in SCI.
Geyh
Szilvia
S
Swiss Paraplegic Research SPF, Nottwil, Switzerland. szilvia.geyh@paranet.ch
Fellinghauer
Bernd A G
BA
Kirchberger
Inge
I
Post
Marcel W M
MW
D000328:Adult; D001315:Australia; D001938:Brazil; D002170:Canada; D003431:Cross-Cultural Comparison; D003430:Cross-Sectional Studies; D005260:Female; D006305:Health Status Indicators; D006801:Humans; D007557:Israel; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010549:Personal Satisfaction; D011594:Psychometrics; D011788:Quality of Life; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D013019:South Africa; D013119:Spinal Cord Injuries / Q000523:psychology*; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D014481:United States; D014944:World Health Organization
Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2007 Feb;86(2):104-13
17075363
BMJ. 1995 Jan 21;310(6973):170
7833759
J Appl Meas. 2003;4(3):205-21
12904672
J Pers Assess. 1991 Aug;57(1):149-61
1920028
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988 May;54(5):820-8
2967896
Spinal Cord. 2006 Sep;44(9):541-6
16955074
Restor Neurol Neurosci. 2002;20(3-4):135-49
12454362
Value Health. 2003 Sep-Oct;6(5):522-31
14627058
Spinal Cord. 2010 Feb;48(2):144-8
19597521
Qual Life Res. 1998 May;7(4):323-35
9610216
Med Care. 2004 Jan;42(1 Suppl):I37-48
14707754
J Rehabil Med. 2002 Sep;34(5):239-46
12392240
Qual Life Res. 2003;12 Suppl 1:73-80
12803313
Psychol Med. 1998 May;28(3):551-8
9626712
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Sep;79(9):1122-8
9749695
Psychol Health Med. 2009 Mar;14(2):220-6
19235081
Eur J Public Health. 2006 Aug;16(4):420-8
16141303
Spinal Cord. 2010 Apr;48(4):305-12
20065984
Disabil Rehabil. 2005 Apr 8-22;27(7-8):361-6
16040537
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2002 Apr;83(4):555-61
11932861
Perspect Psychol Sci. 2008 Jul;3(4):264-85
26158947
Psychol Health Med. 2006 Feb;11(1):80-90
17129897
Spinal Cord. 2007 Apr;45(4):275-91
16909143
Disabil Rehabil. 2004 Oct 7;26(19):1135-42
15371026
Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2004 Jan;39(1):1-8
15022040
Med Care. 2004 Jan;42(1 Suppl):I7-16
14707751
Annu Rev Public Health. 1999;20:309-35
10352861
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999 Aug;80(8):867-76
10453761
J Neurol Phys Ther. 2005 Sep;29(3):139-46
16398946
J Pers Assess. 1985 Feb;49(1):71-5
16367493
Qual Life Res. 2004 Mar;13(2):299-310
15085902
J Rehabil Med. 2006 May;38(3):172-80
16702084
Psychol Health Med. 2006 Feb;11(1):91-9
17129898
Eura Medicophys. 2007 Dec;43(4):559-60
18084181
J Appl Meas. 2002;3(2):205-31
12011501
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 May-Jun;42(3 Suppl 1):87-110
16195966
Spinal Cord. 2006 Feb;44(2):95-105
16130026
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1998 Apr;79(4):395-401
9552104
Soc Sci Med. 1998 Jun;46(12):1569-85
9672396
J Clin Epidemiol. 1998 Nov;51(11):903-12
9817107
BMJ. 2001 May 26;322(7297):1297-300
11375237
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004 Nov;85(11):1848-53
15520980
Value Health. 2008 May-Jun;11(3):509-21
18179659
Spinal Cord. 2000 Sep;38(9):509-23
11035471
Spinal Cord. 2004 Sep;42(9):491-502
15263890
J Rehabil Med. 2004 Jul;(44 Suppl):9-11
15370742
Spinal Cord. 2009 Jan;47(1):82-6
18574486
Int J Nurs Stud. 2007 Jan;44(1):153-5
16978628
J Appl Meas. 2002;3(1):85-106
11997586
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 Apr;84(4 Suppl 2):S43-51
12692771
Int J Nurs Stud. 2006 Sep;43(7):891-901
16696978
Spinal Cord. 2001 Jul;39(7):387-93
11464313
J Rehabil Res Dev. 2005 May-Jun;42(3):291-304
16187242