Schneider Stefan, Stone Arthur A
Dornsife Center for Self-Report Science, Center for Economic and Social Research, University of Southern California, 635 Downey Way, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-3332, USA.
Qual Life Res. 2016 Oct;25(10):2511-2521. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1293-7. Epub 2016 Apr 12.
Self-report items in quality of life (QoL) scales commonly use vague quantifiers like "sometimes" or "often" to measure the frequency of health-related experiences. This study examined whether the meaning of such vaguely quantified response options differs depending on people's medical status and age, which may undermine the validity of QoL group comparisons.
Respondents (n = 600) rated the frequency of positive and negative QoL experiences using vague quantifiers (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always) and provided open-ended numeric frequency counts for the same items. Negative binomial regression analyses examined whether the numeric frequencies associated with each vague quantifier differed between medical status (no vs. one or more medical conditions) and age (18-40 vs. 60+ years) groups.
Compared to respondents without a chronic condition, those with a medical condition assigned a higher numeric frequency to the same vague quantifiers for negative QoL experiences; this effect was not evident for positive QoL experiences. Older respondents' numeric frequencies were more extreme (i.e., lower at the low end and somewhat higher at the high end of the response range) than those of younger respondents. After adjusting for these effects, differences in QoL became somewhat more pronounced between medical status groups, but not between age groups.
The results suggest that people with different medical backgrounds and age do not interpret vague frequency quantifiers on a QoL scale in the same way. Open-ended numeric frequency reports may be useful to detect and potentially correct for differences in the meaning of vague quantifiers.
生活质量(QoL)量表中的自我报告项目通常使用“有时”或“经常”等模糊量词来衡量与健康相关经历的频率。本研究调查了这种模糊量化的回答选项的含义是否因人们的医疗状况和年龄而异,这可能会削弱生活质量组间比较的有效性。
受访者(n = 600)使用模糊量词(从不、很少、有时、经常、总是)对积极和消极的生活质量经历的频率进行评分,并为相同项目提供开放式数字频率计数。负二项回归分析检验了与每个模糊量词相关的数字频率在医疗状况(无疾病与有一种或多种疾病)和年龄(18 - 40岁与60岁以上)组之间是否存在差异。
与没有慢性病的受访者相比,患有疾病的受访者对相同的模糊量词在消极生活质量经历上赋予了更高的数字频率;这种效应在积极生活质量经历中不明显。年长受访者的数字频率比年轻受访者的更极端(即在回答范围的低端更低,在高端略高)。在调整这些影响后,生活质量在医疗状况组之间变得更加明显,但在年龄组之间没有。
结果表明,具有不同医疗背景和年龄的人对生活质量量表上的模糊频率量词的解释方式不同。开放式数字频率报告可能有助于检测并潜在地纠正模糊量词含义的差异。