Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 161

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Methods for Quality-Of-Life Studies

Testa, Marcia A., Nackley, Johanna F.·1994·Annual Review of Public Health

Abstract

Methodologies involving the use of quality-of-life patient outcomes in observational and interventional studies of health are drawn from a large and diverse field of research methods. The multidimensional way in which quality of life is conceptualized will affect the way it is measured and the complexity of the measurement. At the earliest stages of research, one must rely on methods common to the fields of tests and measurement, survey research, psychometrics and sociometrics to measure constructs that are not directly observable. Indices measuring performance can either focus on the scale's ability to perform in noninterventional, cross-sectional studies or interventional, longitudinal studies. Indices of stability, internal consistency, responsiveness with respect to true changes in quality of life, and sensitivity to treatment effects can be used to assess the scale's adequacy as a dependent variable of interest. Respondent variability can occur due to factors such as different reporters (patient, spouse, physician), the manner and form of administration (long form vs short form; self-administration vs interview) and the assessment environment (clinic, home). Finally, since quality-of-life research often involves inferential statistics and hypothesis testing, the statistical and epidemiologic principles of good study design should be followed. In addition, one should account for the reliability, responsiveness, and the sensitivity of the scale when designing the scientific hypotheses, and should specifically address the meaning of quality-of-life effect sizes by interventional-based validation. Design considerations must address the statistical issues of power, the determination of effect sizes through validation by external criteria, longitudinal data, effects of withdrawal and early termination, ceiling and floor effects, and heterogeneity of responsiveness and sensitivity among individuals. The problem of estimating quality-of-life summary parameters for use in pharmacoeconomic models is receiving increasing attention in this era of health-care reform and fiscal restraint. While medical decision theory has used cost-effectiveness models and quality-adjusted life years since the early 1970s, estimation of population parameters to differentiate among different medical interventions is relatively new. The assessment of the patient outcomes associated with medical interventions in terms of the risks, benefits and costs will clearly be a major focus of health-care reform. Development of new methodologies in quality-of-life research should build upon the strong foundation already established in the areas of clinical research, epidemiology, biostatistics, economics and behavioral science.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Overview

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 · 10.1146/annurev.pu.15.050194.002535

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cited by

See all 161

Metadata

Authors
Testa, M. A., & Nackley, J. F.
Venue
Annual Review of Public Health
Published
1994-05
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
535-559
ISSN
  • 0163-7525 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2093
OpenAlex
W2062141193
Cited by
161
References
0
FWCI
29.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Methods for Quality-Of-Life Studies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1146/annurev.pu.15.050194.002535
The paper
Testa, M. A., & Nackley, J. F. (1994). Methods for Quality-Of-Life Studies. Annual Review of Public Health. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pu.15.050194.002535

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.