Ann Rehabil Med.  2013 Aug;37(4):488-497. 10.5535/arm.2013.37.4.488.

Reliability and Validity of the Korean World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL)-BREF in People With Physical Impairments

• Kim WH
• Hahn SJ
• Im HJ
• Yang KS

• KMID: 2266604
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5535/arm.2013.37.4.488

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
To identify the validity and reliability of the Korean version World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL)-BREF among people with physical impairments living in a community.
METHODS
Participants listed in the community-based rehabilitation project were recruited from 45 public health centers. People with brain lesions or physical disabilities were selected. Respondents (n=750) filled out the Korean WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Obtained data were analyzed statistically to assess the internal consistency as well as the construct and discriminant validity. An exploratory factor analysis was also performed.
RESULTS
Cronbach's alpha for the total score was 0.839. The value for each domain ranged from 0.746 to 0.849. Pearson correlation coefficient between each domain ranged from 0.539 to 0.717. The highest correlation was between the psychological and physical domain. The item-domain correlation indicated a significant correlation with their original domains. A multiple regression analysis of each domain with two overall questions was performed. The psychological domain made the strongest contribution with the overall quality of life (unstandardized coefficient B=0.065, r2=0.437). When general health satisfaction was considered as a dependent variable, the physical domain most strongly contributed to the variable (unstandardized coefficient B=0.081, r2=0.462). Exploratory factor analysis yielded four factors in the WHOQOL-BREF, accounting for 55.29% of the variability. To assess the discriminant validity, a comparison of each domain with Modified Barthel Index (MBI) was conducted. There were highly significant changes across the MBI scores with the WHOQOL-BREF domains (p<0.001).
CONCLUSION
Korean WHOQOL-BREF is a valid and reliable tool to measure the quality of life for people with physical impairments. It has good internal consistency, construct validity and discriminant validity for the population. Further study with a stratified sample is needed.

Keyword

WHOQOL-BREF; Community based rehabilitation; Reliability; Validity

MeSH Terms

Accounting
Brain
Surveys and Questionnaires
Public Health
Quality of Life
Reproducibility of Results
World Health
World Health Organization
Surveys and Questionnaires

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Sociodemographic characteristics of the total sample (n=750).

Reference

1. Employment Development Institute. Statistics on the disabled in 2011. Seongnam: Employment Development Institute;2011.

2. Kim SW, Lee WS, Shin JB, You S, Lee SK, Yun DS, et al. Severity of disability and quality of life in handicapped persons in welfare facility and home in Goyang city. J Korean Acad Rehabil Med. 2008; 32:443–448.

3. Campolina AG, Pinheiro MM, Ciconelli RM, Ferraz MB. Quality of life among the Brazilian adult population using the generic SF-8 questionnaire. Cad Saude Publica. 2011; 27:1121–1131. PMID: 21710009.

4. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. Soc Sci Med. 1995; 41:1403–1409. PMID: 8560308.

5. The WHOQOL Group. The World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment (WHOQOL): development and general psychometric properties. Soc Sci Med. 1998; 46:1569–1585. PMID: 9672396.

6. Min SK, Kim KI, Lee CI, Jung YC, Suh SY, Kim DK. Development of the Korean versions of WHO Quality of Life scale and WHOQOL-BREF. Qual Life Res. 2002; 11:593–600. PMID: 12206580.

7. The WHOQOL Group. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychol Med. 1998; 28:551–558. PMID: 9626712.

8. Skevington SM, Lotfy M, O'Connell KA. WHOQOL Group. 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. PMID: 15085902.

9. Yao G, Wu CH. Factorial invariance of the WHOQOL-BREF among disease groups. Qual Life Res. 2005; 14:1881–1888. PMID: 16155775.

10. World Health Organization. World report on disability. Geneva: World Health Organization;2011.

11. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Disability and disability services in Australia: based on an extract of Australia's welfare, 2005. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare;2006.

12. Leung SO, Chan CC, Shah S. Development of a Chinese version of the Modified Barthel Index: validity and reliability. Clin Rehabil. 2007; 21:912–922. PMID: 17981850.

13. Chan SW, Chiu HF, Chien WT, Goggins W, Thompson D, Hong B. Predictors of change in health-related quality of life among older people with depression: a longitudinal study. Int Psychogeriatr. 2009; 21:1171–1179. PMID: 19781111.

14. Shah S, Vanclay F, Cooper B. Improving the sensitivity of the Barthel Index for stroke rehabilitation. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42:703–709. PMID: 2760661.

15. Jorgensen HS, Nakayama H, Raaschou HO, Vive-Larsen J, Stoier M, Olsen TS. The Copenhagen Stroke Study. Outcome and time course of recovery in stroke. Part I: Outcome. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1995; 76:399–405. PMID: 7741608.

16. Sulter G, Steen C, De Keyser J. Use of the Barthel index and modified Rankin scale in acute stroke trials. Stroke. 1999; 30:1538–1541. PMID: 10436097.

17. Wade DT, Hewer RL. Functional abilities after stroke: measurement, natural history and prognosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 1987; 50:177–182. PMID: 3572432.

18. Jorritsma W, de Vries GE, Dijkstra PU, Geertzen JH, Reneman MF. Neck Pain and Disability Scale and Neck Disability Index: validity of Dutch language versions. Eur Spine J. 2012; 21:93–100. PMID: 21814745.

19. Jang Y, Hsieh CL, Wang YH, Wu YH. A validity study of the WHOQOL-BREF assessment in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2004; 85:1890–1895. PMID: 15520987.

20. Jaracz K, Kalfoss M, Gorna K, Baczyk G. Quality of life in Polish respondents: psychometric properties of the Polish WHOQOL-Bref. Scand J Caring Sci. 2006; 20:251–260. PMID: 16922978.

21. 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; 101:342–351. PMID: 12101852.

22. Hanestad BR, Rustoen T, Knudsen O Jr, Lerdal A, Wahl AK. Psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire for the Norwegian general population. J Nurs Meas. 2004; 12:147–159. PMID: 16092712.

23. Lucas-Carrasco R, Skevington SM, Gomez-Benito J, Rejas J, March J. Using the WHOQOL-BREF in persons with dementia: a validation study. Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord. 2011; 25:345–351. PMID: 21297426.

24. Chiu WT, Huang SJ, Hwang HF, Tsauo JY, Chen CF, Tsai SH, et al. Use of the WHOQOL-BREF for evaluating persons with traumatic brain injury. J Neurotrauma. 2006; 23:1609–1620. PMID: 17115908.

25. Kim SH. Research on the actual condition on disabled in 2011. Seoul: Ministry of Health & Welfare;2011.