Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The case for domains of function in quality of life assessment

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Over the past 20 years, there has been a growing interest in the inclusion of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures to assess the effects of a condition and/or its therapies on a person's health. In response to this interest, methods to assess health status and HRQL have proliferated. There are now a number of valid and reliable instruments available for use in research investigations, which are the culmination of years of research with various populations, and reflect the target populations' perceptions of their health status and HRQL. In this article, we provide a definition of HRQL and its dimensions; describe types of HRQL instruments; discuss variations in how HRQL measures are scored and how these methods influence the interpretation of results; briefly describe utility measures; and summarize by discussing basic issues in the selection of HRQL instruments for research investigations.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials: Report of the workshop on quality of life research in cancer clinical trials. Bethesda, Maryland: United States Department of Health and Human Services, 1991.

  2. Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD (eds), Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Washington DC: LeJacq, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Aaronson NK, Beckmann J. (Eds.) The Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. New York: Raven press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Special Issue. International Use, Application and Performance of Health-Related Quality of Life Instruments. Qual Life Res 1993; 2(6).

  6. Stewart AL, Ware JE (eds), Measuring Functioning and Well-Being. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wilkin D, Hallam L, Doggett M. Measures of Need and Outcome for Primary Health Care. New York: Oxford Medical Publications, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McDowell K, Newell C. Measuring Health: A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Naughton MJ, Shumaker SA, Anderson R, Czajkowski S. Psychological Aspects of Health-Related Quality of Life Measurement: Tests and Scales. In Spilker B (ed), Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials, 2nd edn., Philadelphia; Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Stewart A. Conceptual and methodologic issues in defining quality of life: state of the art. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 1992; 7: 3–11.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Wenger NK, Furberg CD. Cardiovascular disorders. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Berzon R, Hays RD, Shumaker SA. International use, application and performance of health-related quality of life instruments. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 367–368.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Shumaker SA, Anderson R, Berzon R, Hayes R (eds), International use, application and performance of healthrelated quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2.

  14. Schron EB, Shumaker SA. The integration of health quality of life in clinical research: Experiences from cardiovascular clinical trials. Prog in Cardiovasc Nurs 1992; 7(2): 21–28.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Naughton MJ, Shumaker SA. Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life. In Friedman LM, Furberg CD, De-Mets DL (Eds.), Fundamentals of Clinical Trials, 3rd edn., St. Louis: Mosby Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. The sickness impact profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992; 30(6): 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol 1993; 11(3): 570–579.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Melzack R. The McGill pain questionnaire: Major properties and scoring methods. Pain 1975; 1: 277–299.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Radloff LS. The CES-D Scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Appl Psychol Meas 1977; 1: 385–401.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27(3): S217–S232.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ware JE, Kosinski M, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Lincoln, Rhode Island: Quality Metric Inc, 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring healthrelated quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–629.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Revicki DA, Kaplan RM. Relationship between psychometric and utility-based approaches to the measurement of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 477–487.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Feeney D, Labell R, Torrance GW. Integrating economic evaluations and quality of life assessments. In: Spilker B (ed.), Quality of life assessments. New York: Raven Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Torrance GW. Measurement of health state utilities for economic appraisal. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kaplan RM. Utility Assessment for Estimating a Quality-Adjusted Life Years. La Jolla, CA: University of California at San Diego, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Revicki DA. Relationship between health utility and psychometric health status measures. Med Care 1992; 30(5): MS274–MS282.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kaplan RM, Feeny D, Revicki DA. Methods for assessing relative importance in preference based outcome measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 467–475.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Patrick DL, Erickson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Torrance GW. Utility approach to measuring health-related quality of life. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 593–600.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Gold MR, Siegel JE, Russell LB, Weinstein MC (Eds.), Cost-Effectiveness in Health and Medicine. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Symposium on the Clinical Significance of Quality-of-Life Measures in Cancer Patients. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2002; 77 (April-June).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Michelle J. Naughton & Sally A. Shumaker

Authors
  1. Michelle J. Naughton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sally A. Shumaker
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Naughton, M.J., Shumaker, S.A. The case for domains of function in quality of life assessment. Qual Life Res 12 (Suppl 1), 73–80 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023585707046

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1023585707046

Search

Navigation