Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
https://trends.org.br/article/doi/10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0058
Trends in Psychiatry and Psychotherapy
Original Article

Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Abbreviated version in Portuguese-speaking adults from three different countries

Propriedades psicométricas do Instrumento de Qualidade de Vida da Organização Mundial de Saúde - Versão Abreviada em adultos falantes de língua portuguesa de três países diferentes

Wanderson Roberto da Silva; Fernanda Salloume Sampaio Bonafé; João Marôco; Benvindo Felismino Samuel Maloa; Juliana Alvares Duarte Bonini Campos

http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2237-6089-2017-0058 Trends Psychiatry Psychother, vol.40, n2, p.104-113, 2018
PDF
SciELO
Downloads: 0
Views: 569

Abstract

Abstract Objective: To evaluate the validity, reliability and invariance of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Instrument-Abbreviated version (WHOQOL-Bref) in Portuguese-speaking adults from three different countries. Methods: A total of 4,020 Brazilian, Portuguese, and Mozambican individuals participated in the study. The total sample was divided into four samples: Brazilian patients (n = 1,120), Brazilian students (n = 1,398), Portuguese students (n = 1,165) and Mozambican students (n = 337). Factorial validity of the WHOQOL-Bref was assessed by confirmatory factor analysis. The convergent and discriminant validities of the instrument were assessed using the average variance extracted (AVE) and the square of Pearson's correlational coefficient (r2), respectively. Composite reliability and ordinal alpha were used as measures of reliability. The metric, scalar, and strict invariance of WHOQOL-Bref was evaluated by multi-group analysis in independent subsamples (within each sample) and only between Brazil and Portugal (transnational invariance), because the configural model of Mozambique was different. Results: The original model of the WHOQOL-Bref did not show a good fit for the samples. Different items were excluded to fit the instrument in each sample (different models for WHOQOL-Bref among Brazilian, Portuguese, and Mozambican samples). AVE and r2 were not adequate; however, the reliability of the WHOQOL-Bref was good, except in the Mozambican sample. Invariance was observed only in independent subsamples. Conclusion: The WHOQOL-Bref fitted models showed adequate factorial validity and invariance in independent subsamples. The transnational non-invariance of the WHOQOL-Bref shows the influence of culture on the operationalization of the quality of life construct.

Keywords

Quality of life, validity, reliability, students, patients

Resumo

Resumo Objetivo: Avaliar a validade, a confiabilidade e a invariância do World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument-Abbreviated version (WHOQOL-Bref) em adultos de três diferentes países de língua portuguesa. Métodos: Um total de 4.020 indivíduos brasileiros, portugueses e moçambicanos participaram do estudo. A amostra total foi dividida em quatro amostras: pacientes brasileiros (n = 1.120), estudantes brasileiros (n = 1.398), estudantes portugueses (n = 1.165) e estudantes moçambicanos (n = 337). A validade fatorial do WHOQOL-Bref foi avaliada por meio de análise fatorial confirmatória. As validades convergente e discriminante do instrumento foram avaliadas utilizando a variância média extraída (VEM) e o quadrado do coeficiente de correlação de Pearson (r2), respectivamente. A confiabilidade composta e o coeficiente alfa ordinal foram utilizados como medidas de confiabilidade. As invariâncias métrica, escalar e estrita do WHOQOL-Bref foram avaliadas por análise multi-grupos em subamostras independentes (dentro de cada amostra) e somente entre Brasil e Portugal (transnacional), porque o modelo configuracional de Moçambique era diferente. Resultados: O modelo original do WHOQOL-Bref não apresentou bom ajustamento para as amostras. Diferentes itens foram excluídos para ajustar o instrumento em cada amostra (modelos diferentes para o WHOQOL-Bref entre amostras brasileiras, portuguesas e moçambicanas). A VEM e o r2 não foram adequados; entretanto, a confiabilidade do WHOQOL-Bref foi boa, exceto na amostra moçambicana. A invariância foi encontrada apenas em subamostras independentes. Conclusão: Os modelos ajustados do WHOQOL-Bref apresentaram adequada validade fatorial e invariância em subamostras independentes. A não invariância transnacional do WHOQOL-Bref revela a influência da cultura na operacionalização do construto qualidade de vida.

Palavras-chave

Qualidade de vida, validade, confiabilidade, estudantes, pacientes

References

Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: assessment, analysis, and interpretation. 2000.

Seidl EMF, Zannon CMLC. Quality of life and health: conceptual and methodological issues. Cad Saude Publica. 2004;20:580-8.

WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization qualify of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:1403-9.

Fleck MPA, Leal OF, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G. Development of the Portuguese version of the OMS evaluation instrument of quality of life. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 1999;21:19-28.

WHOQOL Group. Development of the WHOQOL: rationale and current status. Int J Ment Health. 1994;23:24-56.

Bampi LNS, Baraldi S, Guilhem D, Lino MM, Campos ACO. Quality of life of health sciences students: similarities and differences. J Nurs. 2016;10:2589-94.

Colbourn T, Masache G, Skordis-Worrall J. Development, reliability and validity of the Chichewa WHOQOL-BREF in adults in Lilongwe, Malawi. BMC Res Notes. 2012;5:346.

Fu TS, Tuan YC, Yen MY, Wu WH, Huang CW, Chen WT. Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality Of Life Assessment-Brief in methadone patients: a validation study in northern Taiwan. Harm Reduct J. 2013;10:37.

Ohaeri JU, Awadalla AW, El-Abassi AH, Jacob A. Confirmatory factor analytical study of the WHOQOL-Bref: experience with Sudanese general population and psychiatric samples. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;1:1-9.

Skevington SM, Lotfy M, Connell KAO. 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. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:299-310.

Bullinger M, Anderson R, Cella D. Developing anda evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:451-9.

The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998;46:1569-85.

Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998;28:551-8.

Shawver Z, Griffith JD, Adams LT, Evans JV, Benchoff B, Sargent R. An examination of the WHOQOL-BREF using four popular data collection methods. Comput Human Behav. 2016;55:446-54.

Singh K, Junnarkar M. Validation and effect of demographic variables on perceived quality of life by adolescents. Asian J Psychiat. 2014;12:88-94.

Yoshitake N, Sun Y, Sugawara M, Matsumoto S, Sakai A, Takaoka J. The psychometric properties of th WHOQOL-BREF in Japanese couples. Health Psychol Open. 2015;2:1-9.

Najafi M, Sheikhvatan M, Montazeri A, Sheikhfatollahi M. Factor structure of the World Health Organization's Quality of Life Questionnaire-BREF in patients with coronary artery disease. Int J Prev Med. 2013;4:1052-8.

Yao G, Chung CW, Yu CF, Wang JD. Development and verification of validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF taiwan version. J Formos Med Assoc. 2002;101:342-51.

Oliveira SE, Carvalho H, Esteves F. Toward an understanding of the quality of life construct: validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-Bref in a psychiatric sample. Psychiat Res. 2016;244:37-44.

Silva WR, Costa D, Pimenta F, Maroco J, Campos JADB. Psychometric evaluation of a unified Portuguese-language version of the Body Shape Questionnaire in female university students. Cad Saude Publica. 2016;32.

Benítez-Borrego S, Mancho-Fora N, Farràs-Permanyer L, Urzúa-Morales A, Guàrdia-Olmos J. Differential item functioning of WHOQOL-BREF in nine Iberoamerican countries. Rev Iberoam Psicol Salud. 2016;7:51-9.

Yao G, Wu C. Similarities and differences among the Taiwan, China, and Hong-Kong versions of the WHOQOL questionnaire. Soc Indic Res. 2009;91:78-98.

Fleck MPA, Louzada S, Xavier M, Chachamovich E, Vieira G, Santos L. Aplicação da versão em português do instrumento abreviado de avaliação da qualidade de vida “WHOQOL-bref”. Rev Saude Publica. 2000;34:178-83.

Vaz Serra A, Canavarro MC, Simões MR, Pereira M, Gameiro S, Quartilho MJ. Estudos psicométricos do instrumento de avaliação da qualidade de vida da Organização Mundial de Saúde (WHOQOL-Bref) para português de Portugal. Psiquiatr Clin. 2006;27:41-9.

Hair JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE, Tatham RL. Multivariate data analysis. 2005.

Critério Brasil. 2015.

Marôco J. Análise de equações estruturais. 2014.

Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 1998.

Hair Jr JF, Black WC, Babin B, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. 2009.

Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. 1981;18:39-50.

Gadermann AM, Guhn M, Zumbo BD. Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Pratic Assess Res Eval. 2012;17:1-13.

Marôco J, Garcia-Marques T. Qual a fiabilidade do alfa de Cronbach? Questões antigas e soluções modernas?. Laboratório de Psicologia. 2006;4:65-90.

Kaplan D. Structural equation modeling: foundations and extensions. 2000.

Kluthcovsky ACGC, Kluthcovsky FA. O WHOQOL-bref, um instrumento para avaliar qualidade de vida: uma revisão sistemática. Rev Psiquiatr Rio Gd Sul. 2009;31:1-12.

Najafi M, Sheikhvatan M, Montazeri A, Abbasi SH, Sheikhfatollahi M. Quality of life in coronary artery disease: SF-36 compared to WHOQOL-BREF. J Tehran Heart Cent. 2008;3:101-6.

Lin CY, Yang SC, Lai WW, Su WC, Wang JD. Rasch models suggested the satisfactory psychometric properties of the World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief among lung cancer patients. J Health Psychol. 2017;22:397-408.

Chang KC, Lin CY. Effects of publicly funded and quality of life on attendance rate among methadone maintenance treatment patients in Taiwan: an 18-month follow-up study. Harm Reduct J. 2015;40:1-7.

6169badea953954c294596c2 trends Articles
Links & Downloads
2238-0019 (Electronic)
Trends Psychiatry Psychother ©2024 All rights reserved.

Trends Psychiatry Psychother

Share this page
Page Sections