IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v34y2014i5p590-602.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparison of 4 Pediatric Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments

Author

Listed:
  • Kelly M. Kenzik
  • Sanjeev Y. Tuli
  • Dennis A. Revicki
  • Elizabeth A. Shenkman
  • I-Chan Huang

Abstract

Background. Few studies have compared multiple health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) instruments simultaneously for pediatric populations. This study aimed to test psychometric properties of 4 legacy pediatric HRQOL instruments: the Child Health and Illness Profile (CHIP), the KIDSCREEN-52, the KINDL, and the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL). Methods. This study used data from 908 parents whose children (ages 2–19 years) were enrolled in Florida Medicaid. Parents were asked via telephone interview to complete each instrument appropriate to the age of their children. Structural, convergent/discriminant, and known-group validities were investigated. We examined structural validity using confirmatory factor analyses. We examined convergent/discriminant validity by comparing Spearman rank correlation coefficients of homogeneous (physical functioning and physical well-being) versus heterogeneous (physical and psychological functioning) domains of the instruments. We assessed known-groups validity by examining the extent to which HRQOL differed by the status of children with special health needs (CSHCN). Results. Domain scores of the 4 instruments were not normally distributed, and ceiling effects were significant in most domains. The KIDSCREEN-52 demonstrates the best structural validity, followed by the CHIP, KINDL, and PedsQL. The PedsQL and the KIDSCREEN-52 show better convergent/discriminant validity than the other instruments. Known-groups validity in discriminating CSHCN versus no needs was the best for the PedsQL, followed by the KIDSCREEN-52, the CHIP, and the KINDL. Conclusion. No one instrument was fully satisfactory in all psychometric properties. Strategies are recommended for future comparison of item content and measurement properties across different HRQOL instruments for research and clinical use.

Suggested Citation

  • Kelly M. Kenzik & Sanjeev Y. Tuli & Dennis A. Revicki & Elizabeth A. Shenkman & I-Chan Huang, 2014. "Comparison of 4 Pediatric Health-Related Quality-of-Life Instruments," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 34(5), pages 590-602, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:590-602
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X14529846
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X14529846
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X14529846?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. Wade, T.J. & Guo, J.J., 2010. "Linking improvements in health-related quality of life to reductions in medicaid costs among students who use school-based health centers," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(9), pages 1611-1616.
    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.

      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:sae:medema:v:34:y:2014:i:5:p:590-602. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

      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.