World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)

Overview

Purpose

Cross-cultural quality of life measurement - for clinicians to make judgments about areas in which a patient is most affected by disease

Respondents

• Proxy
• Person with a Disability

Administration Method

Interview

Administration Mode

In-person

Developer

World Health Organization

0

Population

General Population

Instrument Citation(s)

Psychometric Citations

• Skevington, S.M., Lotfy, M., & O’Connell, KA. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial – A report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality of Life Research, 13, 299-310.

  Type of Publication

  Peer review

  Instrument Language

  Native languages

  Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

  Mean=45 years

  Sample: Age Group

  Under 18 Years, 18-64 Years, 65+ Years

  Sample: Countries/State

  Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, China, Croatia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, India, Japan, Malaysia, Netherlands, Nigeria, Norway, Romania, Russia, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, United States

  Sample: Disability Type

  Not Reported

  Sample: Gender (%male)

  47%

  Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

  Not Reported

  Sample: Sampling Strategy

  Quota Sampling

  Sample: Size

  11,830

  Reliability: Internal Consistency

  Cronbach's Alphas for physical health (α= 0.82); psychological (α= 0.81);
  environment (α= 0.80); social relationships (α = 0.68)

  Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

  t-test comparisons between sick and well respondents were significant for multiple domains (p<.05)

  multiple correlations between items and their intended domain and between domains and general QOL measures

  Confirmatory factor analysis on two random, split half samples showed an adequate model fit: Half A: CFI=.863, RCFI = .865, RMSEA = .08; Half B: CFI=.876, RCFI=.878, RMSEA=.07

  Study design

  Cross-sectional

• Kalfoss, M.H., Low, G. & Molzahn, A.E. (2008) The suitability of the WHOQOL–BREF for Canadian and Norwegian older adults. European Journal of Ageing, 5, 77-89.

  Type of Publication

  Peer review

  Instrument Language

  English and Norwegian

  Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

  Mean=72.8 (Canada); 75.7 (Norway)

  Sample: Age Group

  65+ Years

  Sample: Countries/State

  Canada, Norway

  Sample: Disability Type

  Not Reported

  Sample: Gender (%male)

  47% (Canada); 42% (Norway)

  Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

  Not Reported

  Sample: Sampling Strategy

  Simple Random Sample, Stratified Random Sample

  Sample: Size

  Canada = 202;
  Norway = 490

  Reliability: Internal Consistency

  Cronbach's Alpha overall for Canada sample (α=.93); Norway sample (α= 0.92).

  Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

  significant domain-to-domain correlations in Canadian sample (r = 0.43 to 0.65); Norwegian sample (r = 0.42 to 0.68);
  In an item-to-domain correlation matrix all items correlated highest with their parent domains in both samples;

  Confirmatory factor analysis: Canadian sample GFI = .817, CFI = .880, RMSEA = .075; Norwegian sample GFI = .841, CFI = .807, RMSEA = .082;

  Significant correlations with the WHOQOL-OLD instrument for convergent validity;

  Significant correlations with other measures for discriminant validity; Significant differences in all domain scores were observed between unhealthy and healthy older adults and those with and without morbidities in both countries

  Study design

  Cross-sectional

• Van Esch,L., Den Oudsten, B.L., & De Vries, J. (2011). The World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument-Short Form (WHOQOL-BREF) in women with breast problems, International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 11, 5-22

  Type of Publication

  Peer review

  Instrument Language

  Dutch

  Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

  Group 1 mean= 55, range=19 to 87;
  Group 2 = 53, range=19-94

  Sample: Age Group

  18-64 Years, 65+ Years

  Sample: Countries/State

  Netherlands

  Sample: Disability Type

  Not Reported

  Sample: Gender (%male)

  0%

  Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

  Not reported

  Sample: Sampling Strategy

  Convenience Sample

  Sample: Size

  Group 1 = 607;
  Group 2 = 549

  Reliability: Internal Consistency

  Group 1: Cronbach's Alpha Physical health (α = .77), Psychological Health (α=.72), Social Relationships (α=.67), Environment (α=.80); Group 2: Cronbach's Alpha Physical health (α = ..82), Psychological Health (α=.78), Social Relationships (α=.68), Environment (α=.82)

  Reliability: Test-retest

  Pearson's r correlations (r=.58 to .84)

  Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

  Confirmatory factor analysis: Group 1 CFI = .88, RMSEA = .06; Group 2 CFI = .90, RMSEA = .06;

  Pearson's r Correlations with other measures (r= -.63 to -.27)

  Validity: Criterion Validity (Concurrent and Predictive)

  Adjusted r squares in predicting other constructs ranged from 04 to .21

  Study design

  Cross-sectional

• Chung W S, Yang M C, Lee M C. Costs and cost effectiveness of directly observed therapy short-course (DOTS) for pulmonary tuberculosis in Taiwan. J Med Health 2012; 1: 33–45.

  Type of Publication

  Peer review

  Instrument Language

  Chinese

  Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

  Patients with tuberculosis group: Mean=50.13, Range=11 to 89;
  Healthy group: Mean = 47.91, Range=11 to 83

  Sample: Age Group

  Under 18 Years, 18-64 Years, 65+ Years

  Sample: Countries/State

  Taiwan

  Sample: Disability Type

  Not Reported

  Sample: Gender (%male)

  Patient with tuberculosis = 71%;
  Healthy referents = 66%

  Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

  Not reported

  Sample: Sampling Strategy

  Convenience Sample

  Sample: Size

  270

  Reliability: Internal Consistency

  Cronbach's Alpha for Version 1 (α = .92); Cronbach's Alpha for Version 2 (α= .92); Cronbach's Alpha for Version 3 (α= .93)

  Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

  Patients with tuberculosis group: exploratory factor analysis resulted in 6 factors (factor loadings >.30); Healthy group = exploratory factor analysis resulted in 5 factors (factor loadings >.30)

  Patients with tuberculosis group: Pearson r correlations between domain scores (r=.56 to .74); Healthy group: Pearson r correlations between domains (r=.57 to .69); Moderate correlations found with other measures

  Significant group effect used to demonstrate discriminant validity

  Study design

  Cross-sectional

• THE WHOQOL GROUP. (1998). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28(3), 551-558.

  Type of Publication

  Peer review

  Instrument Language

  Not Reported

  Sample: Age (Mean and Range)

  Mean=45 years

  Sample: Age Group

  Not Reported

  Sample: Countries/State

  Multiple Countries

  Sample: Disability Type

  N/A

  Sample: Gender (%male)

  50%

  Sample: Race/Ethnicity (%)

  Not reported

  Sample: Sampling Strategy

  Quota sampling

  Sample: Size

  11053

  Reliability: Internal Consistency

  Cronbach's Alpha for physical health (α = .82 to .87); Cronbach's Alpha for psychological (α=.75 to .77); Cronbach's Alpha for social relationships (α=.66 to .69); Cronbach's Alpha for environment (α=.80)

  Reliability: Test-retest

  Pearson r correlations with physical health (r=.66); with psychological (r=.72); with social relationships (r=.76); with environment (r=.87)

  Validity: Construct (Convergent and Discriminant)

  All domains could discriminate between ill and well subjects;

  Confirmatory factor analysis: CFI = .906, .903, .901 for three samples

  Study design

  Cross-sectional