Cited by 279Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire - short form for quality of life assessments in clinical practice: a psychometric study: Q-LES-Q - SF in clinical practice

STEVANOVIC, D.·2011·Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing

Abstract

Accessible summary • The measurement characteristics of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) for quality of life (QOL) assessments in the clinical settings were evaluated. • The Q-LES-Q – SF showed sound internal consistency, test–retest reliability, and convergent and criterion validity, with 80% sensitivity and 100% specificity. • The Q-LES-Q – SF could produce reliable, valid and sensitive assessments of QOL in routine psychiatric practice. The Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire (Q-LES-Q) and its short form (Q-LES-Q – SF) are among the most frequently used outcome measures in psychiatry research. The aim of this study was to analyse the measurement properties of the Q-LES-Q – SF for quality of life assessments in the clinical settings. Fifty-seven adults with a psychiatric diagnosis participated. Psychometric evaluation included descriptive analysis, internal consistency, test–retest reliability, validity, sensitivity and responsiveness analysis. The amount of missing data was 5.3%, while no floor or ceiling effects were observed. The internal consistency and test–retest coefficients were 0.9 and 0.93, respectfully. Almost all items significantly correlated to the total score and other measures used in the study, with the correlations ranging 0.41–0.81. Finally, the responsiveness parameters indicated the Q-LES-Q – SF is 80% sensitive and 100% specific measure. This preliminary analysis of the Q-LES-Q – SF demonstrated that it could produce reliable and valid clinical assessments of quality of life.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2850.2011.01735.x

Cites

22 of 22 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

1 of the 23 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
STEVANOVIC, D.
Venue
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-05
Volume
18
Issue
8
Pages
744-750
ISSN
1351-0126 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1934577361
Cited by
278
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 25 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 25 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
World Health Organization
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
quality of life, psychometric properties, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity, criterion validity, responsiveness, sensitivity and specificity, psychiatric patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personal Satisfaction, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Reproducibility of Results

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