Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D, Aaronson N
Institute for Medical Psychology, University of Munich, Germany.
Qual Life Res. 1993 Dec;2(6):451-9. doi: 10.1007/BF00422219.
In the age of increased international collaboration in medical research, the necessity of having at hand cross-culturally applicable instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in clinical trials has been voiced. Several important theoretical bases leading to cultural bias in HRQL measurement include differences in definitions of HRQL across national and cultural contexts, levels of observation relied upon to indicate HRQL states, and the significance or weight placed upon the various HRQL states or dimensions measured. Despite a growing literature on the development and evaluation of existing HRQL measures in other cultures, comprehensive sets of procedures or requirements for the international part of development and evaluation are lacking. This paper reviews major approaches to developing international HRQL measures, and discusses various methods and criteria that have been recommended for evaluating measurement equivalence in comparisons of research across national and cultural contexts. A summary of recent trends and advances in international HRQL assessment is presented.
在医学研究国际合作日益增加的时代，人们已经提出在临床试验中需要有随时可用的跨文化适用工具来评估健康相关生活质量（HRQL）。导致HRQL测量中文化偏见的几个重要理论基础包括不同国家和文化背景下HRQL定义的差异、用于指示HRQL状态所依赖的观察水平，以及赋予所测量的各种HRQL状态或维度的重要性或权重。尽管关于在其他文化中开发和评估现有HRQL测量方法的文献越来越多，但缺乏针对开发和评估国际部分的全面程序或要求。本文回顾了开发国际HRQL测量方法的主要方法，并讨论了在跨国家和文化背景的研究比较中推荐用于评估测量等效性的各种方法和标准。还介绍了国际HRQL评估的最新趋势和进展总结。
