IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0188478.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of construct validity of two short forms of Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale

Author

Listed:
  • Chia-Yeh Chou
  • Chien-Yu Huang
  • Yi-Jing Huang
  • Gong-Hong Lin
  • Sheau-Ling Huang
  • Shu-Chun Lee
  • Ching-Lin Hsieh

Abstract

Background: No studies have compared the 2-factor structures of Wong’s and Post’s versions of the short-form Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (i.e., 12-item SSQOL) scale. This study compared the construct validity of 2 short-forms of the 12-item-SSQOL (not the 12-domain-SSQOL). Methods: Data were obtained from a previous validation study of the original 49-item SSQOL in 263 patients. Construct validity was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine whether the two-factor structure, including psychosocial and physical domains, was supported in both versions. The CFA tested the data-model fit by indices: chi-square χ2/df ratio, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), nonnormative fit index (NNFI), standard root mean square residual (SRMR), and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI). Item factor loadings (cutoffs: .50) were examined. Model fit was compared using Akaike information criterion (AIC) and consistent AIC (i.e., CAIC) values. Results: All model fit indices for Post’s version fell within expected ranges: χ2/df ratio = 2.02, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.06, and PNFI = 0.76. In the psychosocial domain, the item factor loadings ranged from 0.46 to 0.63. In the physical domain, all items (except the language and vision items) had acceptable factor loadings (0.68 to 0.88). However, in Wong’s version, none of the model indices met the criteria for good fit. In model fit comparisons, Post’s version had smaller AIC and CAIC values than did Wong’s version. Conclusions: All fit indices supported Post’s version, but not Wong’s version. The construct validity of Post’s version with a 2-factor structure was confirmed, and this version of the 12-item SSQOL is recommended.

Suggested Citation

  • Chia-Yeh Chou & Chien-Yu Huang & Yi-Jing Huang & Gong-Hong Lin & Sheau-Ling Huang & Shu-Chun Lee & Ching-Lin Hsieh, 2017. "Comparison of construct validity of two short forms of Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(12), pages 1-13, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188478
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0188478
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188478
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0188478&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0188478?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nadine Correia Santos & Patrício Soares Costa & Liliana Amorim & Pedro Silva Moreira & Pedro Cunha & Jorge Cotter & Nuno Sousa, 2015. "Exploring the Factor Structure of Neurocognitive Measures in Older Individuals," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-18, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gignac, Gilles E. & Kretzschmar, André, 2017. "Evaluating dimensional distinctness with correlated-factor models: Limitations and suggestions," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 138-147.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0188478. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.