Article2002

Development and verification of validity and reliability of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version.

Grace Yao · Chih-Wen Chung · Cheng-Fen Yu · Jung‐Der Wang

493 citations0/0 files storedPubMed

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Health Education and Validation Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The World Health Organization (WHO) initiated a cross-cultural project to develop the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) questionnaire. This paper describes how the brief version of this questionnaire was adapted for use in Taiwan and the results of validity and reliability testing. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Data were collected from 1,068 subjects randomly sampled from 17 hospitals throughout Taiwan. According to the psychometric criteria of the WHO, two (culturally relevant) national items were selected, each from a culture-specific facet that was proposed for Taiwan in a previous study. psychometric properties (factor structures and various types of reliability and validity) were assessed for this brief questionnaire. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed a four-factor (physical, psychological, social, and environmental) model. The internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) coefficients ranged from 0.70 to 0.77 for the four domains. The test-retest reliability coefficients with intervals of 2 to 4 weeks ranged from 0.41 to 0.79 at item/facet level and 0.76 to 0.80 at domain level (all p < 0.01). Content validity coefficients were in the range of 0.53 to 0.78 for item-domain correlations and 0.51 to 0.64 for inter-domain correlations (all p < 0.01). The four domains of the brief form can explain 88% of the variance of the total QOL score and 60% of the variance of the Facet G score (measuring overall quality of life and general health). CONCLUSIONS: This culture-specific study shows that this adaptation of the brief form is a good alternative to the long form of the WHOQOL questionnaire for use in Taiwan.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 493 citations exist upstream.

References

2005Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes 1998Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment 1995The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization 1998The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties 1991Quality of life assessments in clinical trials

Cited by

2006Interpreting the WHOQOL-Brèf: Preliminary Population Norms and Effect Sizes 2006Quality of life in Polish respondents: psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL – Bref 2012Quality of life of Chinese urban community residents: a psychometric study of the mainland Chinese version of the WHOQOL-BREF 2010The influence of social stigma and discriminatory experience on psychological distress and quality of life among rural-to-urban migrants in China 2006Do the SF-36 and WHOQOL-BREF Measure the Same Constructs? Evidence from the Taiwan Population*2007Predictors of family caregivers' burden and quality of life when providing care for a family member with schizophrenia in the People's Republic of China 2017Comorbid generalized anxiety disorder and its association with quality of life in patients with major depressive disorder

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.