Neuro-QOL

Objective: To address the need for brief, reliable, valid, and standardized quality of life (QOL) assessment applicable across neurologic conditions. Methods: Drawing from larger calibrated item banks, we developed short measures (8–9 items each) of 13 different QOL domains across physical, mental, and social health and evaluated their validity and reliability. Three samples were utilized during short form development: general population (Internet-based, n = 2,113); clinical panel (Internet-based, n = 553); and clinical outpatient (clinic-based, n = 581). All short forms are expressed as T scores with a mean of 50 and SD of 10. Results: Internal consistency (Cronbach α) of the 13 short forms ranged from 0.85 to 0.97. Correlations between short form and full-length item bank scores ranged from 0.88 to 0.99 (0.82–0.96 after removing common items from banks). Online respondents were asked whether they had any of 19 different chronic health conditions, and whether or not those reported conditions interfered with ability to function normally. All short forms, across physical, mental, and social health, were able to separate people who reported no health condition from those who reported 1–2 or 3 or more. In addition, scores on all 13 domains were worse for people who acknowledged being limited by the health conditions they reported, compared to those who reported conditions but were not limited by them. Conclusion: These 13 brief measures of self-reported QOL are reliable and show preliminary evidence of concurrent validity inasmuch as they differentiate people based upon number of reported health conditions and whether those reported conditions impede normal function.

[1]  C. Nowinski,et al.  Neuro-QOL and the NIH Toolbox: implications for epilepsy. , 2010, Therapy.

[2]  David Cella,et al.  Neuro-QOL: quality of life item banks for adults with neurological disorders: item development and calibrations based upon clinical and general population testing , 2012, Quality of Life Research.

[3]  R. Hays,et al.  The impact of next and back buttons on time to complete and measurement reliability in computer-based surveys , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[4]  E. Beghi,et al.  Epilepsy and quality of life in adults: A review of instruments , 2005, Epilepsy Research.

[5]  Ingela Wiklund,et al.  Assessment of patient‐reported outcomes in clinical trials: the example of health‐related quality of life , 2004, Fundamental & clinical pharmacology.

[6]  R. Gershon,et al.  The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment , 2007, Quality of Life Research.

[7]  Deborah M. Miller,et al.  The neurology quality-of-life measurement initiative. , 2011, Archives of physical medicine and rehabilitation.

[8]  Liz J. Jansky,et al.  Using Focus Groups To Inform the Neuro‐QOL Measurement Tool: Exploring Patient‐Centered, Health‐Related Quality of Life Concepts Across Neurological Conditions , 2007, The Journal of neuroscience nursing : journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses.

[9]  C. Jenkinson,et al.  Review Paper: Measuring outcomes for neurological disorders: a review of disease-specific health status instruments for three degenerative neurological conditions , 2005, Chronic illness.

[10]  A. Riazi Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Multiple Sclerosis. , 2006, International MS journal.

[11]  David Cella,et al.  Measuring stigma across neurological conditions: the development of the stigma scale for chronic illness (SSCI) , 2009, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  C. Jenkinson,et al.  Quality of life in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis/motor neuron disease: A structured review , 2009, Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis : official publication of the World Federation of Neurology Research Group on Motor Neuron Diseases.

[13]  Chih-Hung Chang,et al.  Patient-reported outcomes measurement and management with innovative methodologies and technologies , 2007, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  C. Nowinski,et al.  A qualitative study of quality of life after stroke: the importance of social relationships. , 2008, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[15]  G. V. van Heck,et al.  The suitability of patient‐based measures in the field of Parkinson's disease: A systematic review , 2007, Movement disorders : official journal of the Movement Disorder Society.

[16]  Steven P Reise,et al.  Item response theory and clinical measurement. , 2009, Annual review of clinical psychology.

[17]  Karon F. Cook,et al.  Letting the CAT out of the Bag: Comparing Computer Adaptive Tests and an 11-Item Short Form of the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire , 2008, Spine.

[18]  G. Vingerhoets,et al.  Language activation distributions revealed by fMRI in post-operative epilepsy patients: Differences between left- and right-sided resections , 2005, Epilepsy Research.