Cited by 4,686Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

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

Skevington, S.M., Lotfy, M., O'Connell, K.A.·2004·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Quality of life (QOL) assessments that are easily administered and which do not impose a great burden on the respondent are needed for use in large epidemiological surveys, clinical settings and clinical trials. Using data from the WHOQOL-BREF field trials, the objectives of this work are to examine the performance of the WHOQOL-BREF as an integrated instrument, and to test its main psychometric properties. The WHOQOL-BREF is a 26-item version of the WHOQOL-100 assessment. Its psychometric properties were analysed using cross-sectional data obtained from a survey of adults carried out in 23 countries (n = 11,830). Sick and well respondents were sampled from the general population, as well as from hospital, rehabilitation and primary care settings, serving patients with physical and mental disorders and with respect to quotas of important socio-demographic variables. The WHOQOL-BREF self-assessment was completed, together with socio-demographic and health status questions. Analyses of internal consistency, item-total correlations, discriminant validity and construct validity through confirmatory factor analysis, indicate that the WHOQOL-BREF has good to excellent psychometric properties of reliability and performs well in preliminary tests of validity. These results indicate that overall, the WHOQOL-BREF is a sound, cross-culturally valid assessment of QOL, as reflected by its four domains: physical, psychological, social and environment.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:qure.0000018486.91360.00

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Skevington, S. M., Lotfy, M., & O'Connell, K. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Bath (GB)
  • World Health Organization (CH)
Corresponding author
Skevington, S.M.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2004-03
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
299-310
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2109935313
Cited by
4,686
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 318 · 2025: 339 · 2024: 326 · 2023: 316 · 2022: 337 · 2021: 376 · 2020: 346 · 2019: 304 · 2018: 256 · 2017: 254 · 2016: 220 · 2015: 255 · 2014: 218 · 2013: 187 · 2012: 164
FWCI
93.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Economic and Social Research Council (M569255001)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
WHOQOL-BREF, quality of life assessment, psychometric properties, cross-cultural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, discriminant validity, WHOQOL-100, self-report questionnaire, physical health, mental health, social health, environmental health
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Child, Cross-Sectional Studies, Cross-Cultural Comparison, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, World Health Organization, Sickness Impact Profile

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review