Cited by 337Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeSurvey Methodology and NonresponseHealth Education and Validation

Retest reliability of surveillance questions on health related quality of life

Open access
Andresen, E M, Catlin, T K, Wyrwich, K W, Jackson-Thompson, J·2003·Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health

Abstract

Study objectives: Health related quality of life (HRQoL) is an important surveillance measure for monitoring the health of populations, as proposed in the American public health plan, Healthy People 2010. The authors investigated the retest reliability of four HRQoL questions from the US Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). Design: Randomly sampled BRFSS respondents from the state of Missouri were re-contacted for a retest of the HRQoL questions. Reliability was estimated by κ statistics for categorical questions and intraclass correlation coefficients for continuous questions. Setting: Missouri, United States. Participants: 868 respondents were re-interviewed by telephone about two weeks after the initial interview (mean 13.5 days). Participants represented the adult, non-institutionalised population of Missouri: 59.1% women; mean age 49.5 years; 93.2% white race. Main results: Retest reliability was excellent (0.75 or higher) for Self-Reported Health and Healthy Days measures, and moderate (0.58 to 0.71) for other measures. Reliability was lower for older adults. Other demographic subgroups (for example, gender) showed no regular pattern of differing reliability and there was very little change in reliability by the time interval between the first and second interview. Conclusions: Retest reliability of the HRQoL Core is moderate to excellent. Scaling options will require future attention, as will research into appropriate metrics for what constitutes important population group differences and change in HRQoL.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/jech.57.5.339

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 mental health measure has psychometric test-retest reliability and convergent validity with other standard measures of mental health status.

    “This measure has been shown to possess both psychometric test-retest reliability (38) and convergent validity with other standard measures of mental health status (39, 40).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. [10]10. US Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy People 2010 (Conference edition, in two volumes). Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2000. (available at http://www.health.gov/healthypeople).
  2. [19]19. Jackson-Thompson J, Hagan R, Wilkerson J, et al. From basic BRFSS to special surveys: the collection, analysis and use of state, area and local data. In: Proceedings of the 1991 Public Health Conference on Records and Statistics. Hyattsville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, 1992; DHHS publication no (PHS) 92-1214:337-342.
  3. [26]26. Nanda U, Andresen EM. Performance of measures of health-related quality of life and function among disabled adults. [Abstract]. Qual Life Res 1998;7:644.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Andresen, E. M., Catlin, T. K., Wyrwich, K. W., & Jackson-Thompson, J.
Affiliations
  • Saint Louis University (US)
  • Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (US)
Corresponding author
Andresen, E M
Venue
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2003-05
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
339-343
ISSN
  • 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
  • 0143-005X
  • 1470-2738
OpenAlex
W2126227528
Cited by
335
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 15
FWCI
25.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Saint Louis University
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (R13/CCR717041-01, U48/CCU 710806, U58/CCU700950-14)
  • National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Survey Methodology and Nonresponse
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
health-related quality of life, test-retest reliability, Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, self-reported health, healthy days, Healthy People 2010, population health surveillance, older adults
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Educational Status, Ethnicity, Female, Health Status, Humans, Income, Male, Middle Aged, Population Surveillance, Quality of Life, Risk Factors, Sex Factors, 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