Cited by 68Heart Failure Treatment and ManagementHealth Education and ValidationHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Der Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) - ein neues krankheitsspezifisches Messinstrument zur Erfassung der Lebensqualität bei chronischer Herzinsuffizienz: Psychometrische Prüfung der deutschen Version

Faller, Hermann, Steinbüchel, Thomas, Schowalter, Marion, Spertus, John A., Störk, Stefan, Angermann, Christiane E.·2005·PPmP - Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie

Abstract

Patients' health-related quality of life is increasingly being included as an additional endpoint when evaluating the treatment of chronic heart failure. Although generic self-report instruments measuring health-related quality of life are available, there is a lack of disease-specific instruments covering various dimensions of quality of life with high reliability, validity and sensitivity to chance. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the German version of a new heart failure-specific quality of life measure, the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ). The sample consisted of 233 consecutively recruited outpatients of a university department in Germany. Test-retest-reliability was high (intraclass correlation coefficient 0.93 for both the Functional State and the Clinical Summary total scores). Construct validity was demonstrated with strong correlations to respective subscales of the SF-36. Known groups validity was shown by both statistically and clinically significant differences between NYHA classes. The examination of sensitivity to change yielded promising results. The questionnaire was well accepted by the participating patients. The KCCQ proved to be a reliable and valid self-report instrument for measuring disease-specific quality of life in chronic heart failure.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1055/s-2004-834597

Cites

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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Faller, H., Steinbüchel, T., Schowalter, M., Spertus, J. A., Störk, S., & Angermann, C. E.
Affiliations
  • University of Würzburg (DE)
  • University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
Venue
PPmP - Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie
Published
2005-12
Volume
55
Issue
3/4
Pages
200-208
ISSN
  • 0937-2032 (ISSN-L)
  • 1439-1058
OpenAlex
W1762969828
Cited by
68
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
de
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PPmP - Psychotherapie · Psychosomatik · Medizinische Psychologie (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, chronic heart failure, health-related quality of life, disease-specific quality of life measures, German version, test-retest reliability, construct validity, known-groups validity, sensitivity to change, NYHA functional class, SF-36
MeSH terms
Aged, Chronic Disease, Female, Germany, Heart Failure, Humans, Language, Male, Middle Aged, Cardiomyopathies, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires

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