Cited by 262Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeAsthma and respiratory diseasesChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

The PedsQL???: Reliability and Validity of the Short-Form Generic Core Scales and Asthma Module

Chan, Kitty S., Mangione-Smith, Rita, Burwinkle, Tasha M., Rosen, Mayde, Varni, James W.·2005·Medical Care

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the reliability and validity of the PedsQL 4.0 SF15, a shortened version of the 23-item PedsQL 4.0 Generic Core Scales, which is a pediatric health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument, and the PedsQL 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module, a short-form of the PedsQL 3.0 Asthma Module. METHODS: The PedsQL 4.0 SF15 and the PedsQL 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module were administered by telephone to 125 adolescents (aged 12-18) and 338 parents of children with asthma (aged 2-11). Healthy (n = 451) and chronically ill (n = 422) children, matched by age, respondent status, and ethnicity to the asthma sample, provided data for selected validity tests. RESULTS: The Total Score from the PedsQL 4.0 SF15 and the Asthma Symptoms scale and Treatment Problems scale from the PedsQL 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module were sufficiently reliable for group comparisons (alpha > or = 0.70 across all age groups) in the asthma sample. The PedsQL 4.0 SF15 and the PedsQL 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module were able to distinguish between children of different clinical status and correlated as expected with measures of productivity and family functioning in the asthma sample. The psychometric properties of the PedsQL 4.0 SF15 were generally comparable to those of the original instrument. CONCLUSION: The Total Score of the PedsQL 4.0 SF15 and the Asthma Symptoms scale of the PedsQL 3.0 SF22 Asthma Module demonstrated the best reliability and validity and should be suitable for group-level comparisons of generic and asthma-specific HRQoL in clinical research studies of children with asthma.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/00005650-200503000-00008

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?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 18 · Cited by 262

Authors
Chan, K. S., Mangione-Smith, R., Burwinkle, T. M., Rosen, M., & Varni, J. W.
Affiliations
  • RAND Corporation (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Texas A&M University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Chan, Kitty S.
  • Rosen, Mayde
Venue
Medical Care
Published
2005-03
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
256-265
ISSN
0025-7079 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2082297626
Cited by
262
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 13
FWCI
23.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Medical Care (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Asthma and respiratory diseases
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
PedsQL, pediatric health-related quality of life, asthma, psychometric validation, reliability statistics, validity, chronic disease, adolescents, parents of children with asthma, asthma symptoms, treatment challenges
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Asthma, Child, Family Relations, Female, Humans, Male, Parents, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Disclosure, Severity of Illness Index, Cost of Illness, Sickness Impact Profile, Children with Disabilities, Disabled Children

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