Nicholl L, Hobart J C, Cramp A F L, Lowe-Strong A S
Health and Rehabilitation Sciences Research Institute, University of Ulster at Jordanstown, Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland, UK.
Mult Scler. 2005 Dec;11(6):708-12. doi: 10.1191/1352458505ms1235oa.
Data from a clinical study presented an opportunity to examine the psychometric properties of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale (LMSQoL), which has undergone limited psychometric evaluation. LMSQoL and Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life-54 (MSQoL-54) data were collected from 90 people with multiple sclerosis (MS) living in the community. Standard psychometric methods to examine data quality, scaling assumptions, scale to sample targeting, reliability, validity, and responsiveness were employed. The LMSQoL satisfied criteria for data quality (no missing data), scaling assumptions (item-total correlations: 0.24-0.56), reliability (Cronbach's alpha: 0.71), and demonstrated responsiveness (effect size: 0.34). Correlations between the LMSQoL and MSQoL-54 physical (range: -0.02 to -0.50) and emotional subscales (range: -0.38 to -0.65) were similar; the magnitude and pattern was not consistent with predictions based on the construct purported to be measured by the LMSQoL. The LMSQoL satisfied many psychometric criteria in this small study, however, it was difficult to interpret the validity data. From this, two fundamental measurement issues are highlighted. Firstly, current methods of examining rating scales provide only circumstantial evidence of validity; secondly, health-rating scales should be developed on the basis of clear conceptual definitions.
一项临床研究的数据提供了一个机会,可用于检验利兹多发性硬化症生活质量量表(LMSQoL)的心理测量特性,该量表此前接受的心理测量评估有限。从90名居住在社区的多发性硬化症(MS)患者中收集了LMSQoL和多发性硬化症生活质量-54(MSQoL-54)的数据。采用了标准的心理测量方法来检验数据质量、量表假设、量表与样本的匹配度、信度、效度和反应度。LMSQoL满足数据质量标准(无缺失数据)、量表假设(项目与总分的相关性:0.24 - 0.56)、信度(克朗巴哈系数:0.71),并显示出反应度(效应量:0.34)。LMSQoL与MSQoL-54身体亚量表(范围:-0.02至-0.50)和情感亚量表(范围:-0.38至-0.65)之间的相关性相似;其大小和模式与基于LMSQoL所宣称测量的结构的预测不一致。在这项小型研究中,LMSQoL满足了许多心理测量标准,然而,效度数据难以解释。由此突出了两个基本的测量问题。首先,当前检验评定量表的方法仅提供效度的间接证据;其次,健康评定量表应基于清晰的概念定义来制定。