Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 785

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Neuro-QOL: Brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology

Open access
Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Nowinski, C.J., Victorson, D., Peterman, A., Miller, D., Bethoux, F., Heinemann, A., Rubin, S., Cavazos, J.E., Reder, A.T., Sufit, R., Simuni, T., Holmes, G.L., Siderowf, A., Wojna, V., Bode, R., McKinney, N., Podrabsky, T., Wortman, K., Choi, S., Gershon, R., Rothrock, N., Moy, C.·2012·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To address the need for brief, reliable, valid, and standardized quality of life (QOL) assessment applicable across neurologic conditions. METHODS: Drawing from larger calibrated item banks, we developed short measures (8-9 items each) of 13 different QOL domains across physical, mental, and social health and evaluated their validity and reliability. Three samples were utilized during short form development: general population (Internet-based, n = 2,113); clinical panel (Internet-based, n = 553); and clinical outpatient (clinic-based, n = 581). All short forms are expressed as T scores with a mean of 50 and SD of 10. RESULTS: Internal consistency (Cronbach α) of the 13 short forms ranged from 0.85 to 0.97. Correlations between short form and full-length item bank scores ranged from 0.88 to 0.99 (0.82-0.96 after removing common items from banks). Online respondents were asked whether they had any of 19 different chronic health conditions, and whether or not those reported conditions interfered with ability to function normally. All short forms, across physical, mental, and social health, were able to separate people who reported no health condition from those who reported 1-2 or 3 or more. In addition, scores on all 13 domains were worse for people who acknowledged being limited by the health conditions they reported, compared to those who reported conditions but were not limited by them. CONCLUSION: These 13 brief measures of self-reported QOL are reliable and show preliminary evidence of concurrent validity inasmuch as they differentiate people based upon number of reported health conditions and whether those reported conditions impede normal function.

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 · 10.1212/wnl.0b013e318258f744

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 785

Metadata

Authors
Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D., Peterman, A., Miller, D., Bethoux, F., Heinemann, A., Rubin, S., Cavazos, J. E., Reder, A. T., Sufit, R., Simuni, T., Holmes, G. L., Siderowf, A., Wojna, V., Bode, R., McKinney, N., Podrabsky, T., Wortman, K., Choi, S., Gershon, R., Rothrock, N., & Moy, C.
Venue
Neurology
Published
2012-06-05
Volume
78
Issue
23
Pages
1860-1867
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W1985265957
Cited by
785
References
0
FWCI
41.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Neuro-QOL: Brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318258f744
The paper
Cella, D., Lai, J.-S., Nowinski, C. J., Victorson, D., Peterman, A., Miller, D., Bethoux, F., Heinemann, A., Rubin, S., Cavazos, J. E., Reder, A. T., Sufit, R., Simuni, T., Holmes, G. L., Siderowf, A., Wojna, V., Bode, R., McKinney, N., Podrabsky, T., . . . Moy, C. (2012). Neuro-QOL: Brief measures of health-related quality of life for clinical research in neurology. Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/wnl.0b013e318258f744

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.