TY - JOUR
T1 - Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores
AU - Sloan, Jeff A.
AU - Aaronson, Neil
AU - Cappelleri, Joseph C.
AU - Fairclough, Diane L.
AU - Varricchio, Claudette
AU - Barofsky, Ivan
AU - Berzon, Rick
AU - Bonomi, Amy
AU - Bullinger, Monika
AU - Cella, David
AU - Ferrans, Carol Estwing
AU - Frost, Marlene
AU - Guyatt, Gordon
AU - Hays, Ron D.
AU - Marquis, Patrick
AU - Moinpour, Carol M.
AU - Moynihan, Tim
AU - Norman, Geoff
AU - Osoba, David
AU - Patrick, Donald
AU - Revicki, Dennis
AU - Rummans, Teresa
AU - Scott, Charles
AU - Sprangers, Mirjam
AU - Symonds, Tara
AU - Wong, Gilbert
AU - Wu, Albert
AU - Wyrwich, Kathleen
PY - 2002
Y1 - 2002
N2 - How many items are needed to measure an individual's quality of life (QOL)? This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of single items and summated scores (from multiple items) as QOL measures. We also address the use of single global measures vs multiple subindices as measures of QOL. The primary themes that recur throughout this article are the relationships between well-defined research objectives, the research setting, and the choice single item vs summated scores to measure QOL. The conceptual framework of the study, the conceptual fit with the measure, and the purpose of the assessment should all be considered when choosing a measure of QOL. No "gold standard" QOL measure can be recommended because no "one size fits all." Single items have the advantage of simplicity at the cost of detail. Multiple-item indices have the advantage of providing a complete profile of QOL component constructs at the cost of increased burden and of asking potentially irrelevant questions. The 2 types of indices are not mutually exclusive and can be used together in a single research study or in the clinical setting.
AB - How many items are needed to measure an individual's quality of life (QOL)? This article describes the strengths and weaknesses of single items and summated scores (from multiple items) as QOL measures. We also address the use of single global measures vs multiple subindices as measures of QOL. The primary themes that recur throughout this article are the relationships between well-defined research objectives, the research setting, and the choice single item vs summated scores to measure QOL. The conceptual framework of the study, the conceptual fit with the measure, and the purpose of the assessment should all be considered when choosing a measure of QOL. No "gold standard" QOL measure can be recommended because no "one size fits all." Single items have the advantage of simplicity at the cost of detail. Multiple-item indices have the advantage of providing a complete profile of QOL component constructs at the cost of increased burden and of asking potentially irrelevant questions. The 2 types of indices are not mutually exclusive and can be used together in a single research study or in the clinical setting.
KW - COOP/WONCA = Primary Care Cooperative Information Project/World Organization of National Colleges, Academies, and Academic Associations of General Practitioners/Family Physicians
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0036237930&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0036237930&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/s0025-6196(11)62218-0
DO - 10.1016/s0025-6196(11)62218-0
M3 - Article
C2 - 12004998
AN - SCOPUS:0036237930
SN - 0025-6196
VL - 77
SP - 479
EP - 487
JO - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
JF - Mayo Clinic Proceedings
IS - 5
ER -