CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 743Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeCancer survivorship and careEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life?

de Boer, A.G.E.M., van Lanschot, J.J.B., Stalmeier, P.F.M., van Sandick, J.W., Hulscher, J.B.F., de Haes, J.C.J.M., Sprangers, M.A.G.·2004·Quality of Life Research
DOI 10.1023/b:qure.0000018499.64574.1f
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose To compare the validity, reliability and responsiveness of a single, global quality of life question to multi-item scales. Method Data were obtained from 83 consecutive patients with oesophageal adenocarcinoma undergoing either transhiatal or transthoracic oesophagectomy. Quality of life was measured at baseline, 5 weeks, 3 and 12 months post-operatively with a single-item Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) ranging from 0 to 100, the multi-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-20 (MOS SF-20) and Rotterdam Symptom Check-List (RSCL). Convergent and discriminant validity, test-retest reliability and both distribution-based and anchor-based responsiveness were evaluated. Major findings At baseline and at 5 weeks, the VAS showed high correlations with the MOS SF-20 health perceptions scale (r = 0.70 and 0.72) and moderate to high correlations with all other subscales of the MOS SF-20 and RSCL (r = 0.29-0.70). The test-retest reliability intra-class correlation for the VAS was 0.87. At 5 weeks post-operatively, the distribution-based responsiveness was moderate for the VAS (standardised response mean: -0.47; effect size: -0.56), high for the physical subscales of the MOS SF-20 and RSCL (-1.08 to -1.51) and low for the psychological subscales (0.11 to -0.25). Five weeks post-operatively, anchor-based responsiveness was highest for the VAS (r = 0.54). Conclusion The VAS is an instrument with good validity, excellent reliability, moderate distribution-based responsiveness and good a…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/b:qure.0000018499.64574.1f

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kempen GIJM. The measurement of the health status of the elderly. A Dutch version of the MOS. Tijdsch Gerontol Geriat 1992; 23: 132-140.
  2. Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences. New York: Academic Press, 1977.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
de Boer, A. G. E. M., van Lanschot, J. J. B., Stalmeier, P. F. M., van Sandick, J. W., Hulscher, J. B. F., de Haes, J. C. J. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
  • Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2004-03
Volume
13
Issue
2
Pages
311-320
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
DOI
10.1023/b:qure.0000018499.64574.1f
OpenAlex
W2147145155
Cited by
743
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 38 · 2020: 44 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 42 · 2016: 46 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 46 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 29
FWCI
39.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Groningen research database (University of Groningen / Centre for Information Technology) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Esophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Keywords
global quality of life, esophageal adenocarcinoma, esophagectomy, Rotterdam Symptom Checklist, responsiveness, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, postoperative quality of life
MeSH terms
Adenocarcinoma, Adult, Aged, Esophageal Neoplasms, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Middle Aged, Netherlands, Pain Measurement, Quality of Life, Esophagectomy, 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