Cited by 92Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and ValidationPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The multicultural quality of life index: presentation and validation

Mezzich, Juan E., Cohen, Neal L., Ruiperez, Maria A., Banzato, Claudio E. M., Zapata‐Vega, Maria I.·2011·Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Quality of life has emerged as a crucial concept for the assessment of health and the planning of health care. Desirable features for the evaluation of quality of life include comprehensiveness, self-ratedness, cultural sensitivity, practicality and psychometric soundness. An attempt to meet these challenges led to the development of a brief multicultural quality of life instrument and to the appraisal of its applicability, reliability and validity. METHODS: The development of the proposed assessment instrument was based on a wide review of the literature and the engagement of a multicultural mental health scholarly team. Its validation was conducted on samples of psychiatric patients (n = 124) and hospital professionals (n = 53) in New York City. RESULTS: A new generic culture-informed and self-rate instrument, the Multicultural Quality of Life Index, has been developed. Its 10 items cover key aspects of the concept, from physical well-being to spiritual fulfilment. Concerning its applicability, mean time for completion was less than 3 minutes and 96% of raters found it easy to use. Test-retest reliability was high (r = 0.87). A Cronbach's α of 0.92 documented its internal consistency and a factor analysis revealed a strong structure. With regard to discriminant validity, a highly significant difference was found between the mean total scores of professionals (x = 8.41) and patients (x = 6.34) presumed to have different levels of quality of life. CONCLUSIONS: The Multicultural Quality of Life Index is a brief and culturally informed instrument that appears to be easy to complete, reliable, internally consistent and valid.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01609.x

Cites

38 of 38 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
Mezzich, J. E., Cohen, N. L., Ruiperez, M. A., Banzato, C. E. M., & Zapata‐Vega, M. I.
Affiliations
  • New York University (US)
  • City University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Mezzich, Juan E.
Venue
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-01-05
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
357-364
ISSN
  • 1356-1294 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2753
OpenAlex
W1529821516
Cited by
92
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
2.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
quality of life, cultural sensitivity, subjective quality of life, instrument validation, psychiatric patients, hospital staff, psychometric properties, spiritual well-being, physical well-being
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, New York City, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Cultural Competency

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