Browne J P, O'Boyle C A, McGee H M, McDonald N J, Joyce C R
Department of Psychology, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Republic of Ireland.
Qual Life Res. 1997 May;6(4):301-9. doi: 10.1023/a:1018423124390.
The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life allows individuals to nominate the domains they consider most important to their quality of life and to use their own value system when describing the functional status and relative importance of those domains. The weights for domain importance are derived through a procedure called judgement analysis. As judgement analysis is impractical for individuals with cognitive impairment and in many clinical situations, a shorter, direct weighting procedure has been developed. To test the new procedure, 40 healthy individuals completed both direct and judgement analysis weightings, at t1 and 7-10 days later (t2). After a further 7-10 days (t3), they were asked to identify the weight profiles they had previously produced using each method. The weights produced by the two methods differed on average by 7.8 points at t1 and 7.2 points at t2. The direct weights changed on average by 4.5 points from t1 to t2, while the judgement analysis weights changed by 8.4 points. At t2, 55% of individuals were able to identify the direct weights they had previously produced. The new procedure demonstrates stability and validity but is not interchangeable with judgement analysis. The most appropriate ways of using and interpreting both procedures are discussed.
个人生活质量评估表允许个人提名他们认为对其生活质量最重要的领域,并在描述这些领域的功能状态和相对重要性时使用自己的价值体系。领域重要性的权重是通过一种称为判断分析的程序得出的。由于判断分析对于认知障碍患者以及许多临床情况来说不切实际,因此开发了一种更简短的直接加权程序。为了测试新程序,40名健康个体在t1以及7至10天后(t2)完成了直接加权和判断分析加权。再过7至10天(t3)后,要求他们识别他们之前使用每种方法得出的权重概况。两种方法得出的权重在t1时平均相差7.8分,在t2时相差7.2分。直接权重从t1到t2平均变化了4.5分,而判断分析权重变化了8.4分。在t2时,55%的个体能够识别他们之前得出的直接权重。新程序显示出稳定性和有效性,但不能与判断分析相互替换。文中讨论了使用和解释这两种程序的最合适方法。