Skip to main content
Journal of Epidemiology logoLink to Journal of Epidemiology
. 2011 Sep 5;21(5):313–318. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20100160

Reliability and Validity of Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey, Korean Version

Su-Young Yang 1, Weechang Kang 2, Yoon Yeo 3,4, Yang-Chun Park 1
PMCID: PMC3899429  PMID: 21691034

Abstract

Background

The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS) is a self-administered questionnaire developed in the United States to evaluate the severity of the common cold and its reliability has been validated. We developed a Korean language version of this questionnaire by using a sequential forward and backward translation approach. The purpose of this study was to validate the Korean version of the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS-K) in Korean patients with common cold.

Methods

This multicenter prospective study enrolled 107 participants who were diagnosed with common cold and consented to participate in the study. The WURSS-K includes 1 global illness severity item, 32 symptom-based items, 10 functional quality-of-life (QOL) items, and 1 item assessing global change. The SF-8 was used as an external comparator.

Results

The participants were 54 women and 53 men aged 18 to 42 years. The WURSS-K showed good reliability in 10 domains, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.67 to 0.96 (mean: 0.84). Comparison of the reliability coefficients of the WURSS-K and WURSS yielded a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.71 (P = 0.02). Validity of the WURSS-K was evaluated by comparing it with the SF-8, which yielded a Pearson correlation coefficient of −0.267 (P < 0.001). The Guyatt’s responsiveness index of the WURSS-K ranged from 0.13 to 0.46, and the correlation coefficient with the WURSS was 0.534 (P < 0.001), indicating that there was close correlation between the WURSS-K and WURSS.

Conclusions

The WURSS-K is a reliable, valid, and responsive disease-specific questionnaire for assessing symptoms and QOL in Korean patients with common cold.

Key words: quality of life, Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey, reliability, validity

INTRODUCTION

The “common cold” is caused by a viral infection of the upper respiratory tract.1 This syndrome is generally self-limiting with time, but its symptoms negatively influence quality of life (QOL), and its prevalence imposes huge social and economic burdens.2 In Korea, upper respiratory tract infection is the most common reason for outpatient visits.3 In addition, such infections can result in complications, such as secondary bacterial infections, exacerbation of asthma, and chronic obstructive airway diseases.4,5

A number of clinical trials have investigated the common cold.610 Cellular immune responses, antibody titers, and lymphocyte proliferation have been used for quantitative assessment of the common cold in these studies.912 However, these are not suitable for this purpose because the common cold is caused by various viruses, including rhinovirus, which have more than 100 different serotypes.13 Thus, it is difficult to find specific biomarkers of progression of common cold. For this reason, symptom change is considered a standard indicator of the effect of cold remedies in many clinical studies.14 However, if symptom change is to serve as a reliable indicator of common cold in clinical studies, it is critical that quantitative scales of such change are established and validated.

The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS), developed by Barrett et al,15 is a patient-oriented instrument that evaluates patient QOL in an illness-specific manner. Other scale systems, such as the Jackson Scale16 for the common cold, include only a limited number items regarding symptoms1719 and have rarely been evaluated with respect to their validity.16,20 In contrast, the WURSS includes questionnaires regarding global severity, symptoms, functional QOL, and global change15 and has been verified for responsiveness, reliability, and validity through monitoring of participants with common cold.21 The WURSS has been widely used in respiratory disease research11,2224 and is now accepted as a useful tool in clinical trials of common cold. Because there is no Korean equivalent of the WURSS, we translated the WURSS into the Korean (WURSS-K) and evaluated the validity and reliability of this instrument in patients with upper respiratory tract infection.

METHODS

The WURSS and development of the Korean version

The WURSS includes 44 items: 1 global severity item, 32 symptom-based items, 10 functional QOL items, and 1 global change item. All items are based on 7-point Likert-type severity scales.21 The content of the WURSS is summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Content of the Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS).

Symptomsa Symptoms Symptoms Functional impairmentsb
1. How sick do you feel today? 12. Body aches 23. Swollen glands 34. Think clearly
2. Cough 13. Feeling “run down” 24. Plugged ears 35. Speak clearly
3. Coughing stuff up 14. Sweats 25. Ear discomfort 36. Sleep well
4. Cough interfering with sleep 15. Chills 26. Watery eyes 37. Breathe easily
5. Sore throat 16. Feeling feverish 27. Eye discomfort 38. Walk, climb stairs, exercise
6. Scratchy throat 17. Feeling dizzy 28. Head congestion 39. Accomplish daily activities
7. Hoarseness 18. Feeling tired 29. Chest congestion 40. Work outside the home
8. Runny nose 19. Irritability 30. Chest tightness 41. Work inside the home
9. Plugged nose 20. Sinus pain 31. Heaviness in chest 42. Interact with others
10. Sneezing 21. Sinus pressure 32. Lack of energy 43. Live your personal life
11. Headache 22. Sinus drainage 33. Loss of appetite 44. Compared to yesterday, I feel…

aDirections for symptom-based items (2–33) ask respondents to “Please rate the average severity of your cold symptoms over the last 24 hours.”

bDirections for items on functional impairment (34–43) ask: “Over the last 24 hours, how much has your cold interfered with your ability to…?”

Reprinted from Barrett et al. “The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey is responsive, reliable, and valid.” J Clin Epidemiol 2005;58(6):609–17 with permission from Elsevier and the authors.

The first step in developing the WURSS-K was forward translation: a physician bilingual in English and Korean translated the WURSS into Korean. Then, a translation panel composed of internists, an English linguist, a Korean linguist, and a statistician reviewed the translation and prepared the first Korean draft version (WURSS-K version 1.0). The second step was backward translation: another bilingual physician, blinded to the WURSS, back-translated the WURSS-K version 1.0 into English, and then the panel compared the back-translated English version with the WURSS to identify any ambiguities or inaccuracies in the choice of vocabulary. During this step, we were particularly careful to retain the meaning of the original items, maintaining the subtle differences between descriptions such as “feeling run down”/“feeling tired” and “chest congestion”/“chest tightness”/“chest heaviness.” The second draft version (WURSS-K version 1.1) was prepared after this step. Finally, a cognitive briefing was performed to test the comprehensibility of the WURSS-K version 1.1. Here, the translation panel interviewed 10 patients (age 21–58 years; 50% male) and determined if Korean words for “sinus” and “swollen glands” could be described by patients in layman terms. After completing the above 3 steps, the WURSS-K was submitted for statistical validation (described below) to evaluate its reliability, validity, and responsiveness. The WURSS-K results were compared with those of the WURSS.22

Study design

The Daejeon Oriental Hospital Institutional Review Board approved the protocol (authorization number: DJOMC-19), and all patients understood the purpose and method of this study and provided written informed consent to participate in this research. Participants were recruited from the 3rd to 21st of March 2008 (19 days) in the Daejeon Oriental Hospital of Daejeon University and the Health Center of Daejeon University.

Participants satisfying the following criteria were included in the study: a diagnosis of “common cold” by research physicians, with onset of symptoms within 48 hours. Exclusion criteria included age younger than 18 years or older than 60 years, allergic rhinitis, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sinusitis recurring more than twice per year, anatomical nasal obstruction or deformity, otitis, and exudative pharyngitis.

Participants were asked to complete the WURSS-K daily from the first day for 6 days and were examined with the SF-8 on the third day. The participants were allowed to take cold medicines during this study (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Study design. WURSS-K, Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey, Korean version; IRB, institutional review board.

Figure 1.

At least 30 cases were required to ensure normality of the estimators in each item of the WURSS-K. The number of participants was calculated based on this requirement. The occurrence rate of each item was estimated from the results of the WURSS, where the lowest occurrence rate was reported to be 36.9% for the item “sweats.”21 Therefore, at least 82 (= 30/0.369) participants were required. A total of 107 patients were enrolled to account for potential dropouts during the study period.

Statistical analysis

Data are reported as mean ± standard deviation (SD) unless otherwise specified. The level of significance for all tests was set at P < 0.05. According to the study of the WURSS,21 42 items were classified into 10 domains, except for 1 global severity item and 1 global change item. The internal reliability was evaluated by calculating the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient in each domain based on the average of the scores for the first three days. The Pearson correlation between coefficient alphas of the WURSS-K and reliabilities of the WURSS21 was calculated to evaluate coherence in the variety of the internal reliabilities of these 2 questionnaires. Convergent validity was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficients between total WURSS-K scores observed on the first day and the SF-8 observed on the third day. According to the principle of convergent validity,25 a high correlation with other instruments measuring the same concept is required to prove the validity of different instruments measuring the same concept. We used the last 4-week recall SF-8 Korean version on the third day because other Korean versions of the SF-8, ie, 1-week recall and 24-hour recall, were not available. Here, the subjects were required to perform 4-week recall regarding health-related QOL on the third day, ie, around the middle of this study, which was a reasonable time point for assessing the burden of cold symptoms in patients. For the correlation between the WURSS-K and SF-8, we used the WURSS-K score form the first day because it was more likely to influence the last 4-week recall of the SF-8 than scores from other days.

Guyatt et al26 suggested that the most appropriate indicator of responsiveness should be able to relate variability in test scores of stable subjects to clinically important changes. Responsiveness of each item on the WURSS-K (except for the 44th item) was evaluated by Guyatt’s responsiveness index (Responsiveness Index=MID2MSE).27 Here, MID indicates minimal important difference, namely, the mean value of day-to-day changes in each item corresponding to assessments of global change of “a little better” or “somewhat better.” MSE is the mean squared error of the scores of stable subjects reporting “the same” on item 44.

The Pearson correlation coefficient was also calculated between responsiveness indices of the WURSS-K and WURSS.

RESULTS

Demographics of participants

A total of 107 participants were initially enrolled in the study. One participant changed his mind, and 7 participants did not visit the center. All participants who replied once or more were included in the analysis. Most participants were university students, and age ranged from 18 to 42 years (mean 21.38). There were 54 female and 53 male participants (Table 2).

Table 2. Participant characteristics.

Variable Value
Age, years  
 Mean 21.38 ± 2.7
 Range 18–42
Sex, no./total (%)  
 Female 54/107 (50.5)
 Male 53/107 (49.5)
Height (mean ± SD), cm 168.9 ± 7.9
Weight (mean ± SD), kg 62.7 ± 10.7
Blood pressure (mean ± SD), mm Hg  
 Systolic blood pressure 125.6 ± 15.0
 Diastolic blood pressure 73.9 ± 9.5
Pulse (mean ± SD), frequency/min 81.5 ± 13.1
Temperature (mean ± SD), °C 36.3 ± 0.5

Reliability test

As for internal reliability, the Cronbach’s alpha of the 10 domains (based on the average of scores for the first 3 days) ranged from 0.666 to 0.962. According to guidelines for interpreting coefficient alpha, 0.65 to 0.70 is minimally acceptable, 0.70 to 0.80 is respectable, and 0.80 to 0.90 is very good.28,29 For a coefficient alpha greater than 0.90, it is recommended to consider shortening the scale by reducing the number of items.28,29 The domains with a coefficient alpha of >0.90 were “activity and function,” which was composed of 10 items (0.962); “chest,” with 3 items (0.950); and “ears,” with 2 items (0.935). These domains also had reliabilities greater than 0.90 in the WURSS study.21 The reliability coefficients of the WURSS ranged from 0.624 to 0.934. The Pearson correlation between coefficient alphas of the WURSS-K and reliabilities of the WURSS21 was 0.710 (P = 0.02; Table 3). These results indicate that the internal reliability of the WURSS-K was very similar to that of the WURSS.21

Table 3. Domains and Reliability of the WURSS-K and WURSS.

Domain Reliabilitya

WURSS-K WURSS
Cough 0.828 0.828
Sore throat 0.865 0.748
Nasal 0.754 0.717
Sinus 0.803 0.872
Aches 0.666 0.624
Tiredness 0.845 0.937
Sweats 0.838 0.799
Ears 0.935 0.916
Chest 0.950 0.912
Activity and function 0.962 0.934

Correlation coefficientb 0.710*

Items measuring global severity and global change on the WURSS-K were not included in the assessment.

aCronbach’s alpha.

bCorrelation coefficient between WURSS-K and WURSS.

*P = 0.02.

Validity test

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating the total scores of the SF-8 and the total scores on the first day of the WURSS-K. The Pearson correlation coefficient was −0.267 (P = 0.007). The WURSS study21 used a 24-hour recall version of the SF-8 and observed it from, at a minimum, day 2 through day 5. The correlation coefficients for the WURSS data from day 2 through day 5 were −0.60 to −0.84 (P < 0.001), much higher than that of this research (Table 4, Figure 2).

Table 4. Coefficient of correlation with SF-8.

Survey Correlation coefficient P value
WURSS-Ka −0.267 P = 0.007
WURSSb −0.60 to −0.84 P < 0.001

aSF-8 (4-week recall) was measured on the third day.

bSF-8 (24-hr recall) was measured every day.

Figure 2. Correlation between the WURSS-K (Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey, Korean version) and SF-8. The WURSS-K included data from day 1.

Figure 2.

Responsiveness test

The responsiveness of each item of the WURSS-K was checked by calculating the Guyatt’s responsiveness index.26,27 The responsiveness indices ranged from 0.13 to 0.46: the maximum index of 0.46 was obtained for the first question, “How sick do you feel today?”, and the minimum index of 0.13 was obtained for the question on “sinus pressure near the nose.” In the WURSS study,21 the indices ranged from 0.139 for the question on “plugged ears” to 0.709 for the first question. The correlation coefficient between the responsive indices of the WURSS-K and those of the WURSS21 was 0.534 (P < 0.001; Table 5), which showed that the responsiveness of these 2 instruments was definitely correlated.

Table 5. Responsiveness of WURSS-K and WURSS.

Item Responsivenessa

WURSS-K WURSS
1 0.460 0.709
2 0.294 0.300
3 0.224 0.193
4 0.234 0.247
5 0.367 0.278
6 0.324 0.307
7 0.254 0.276
8 0.363 0.370
9 0.318 0.337
10 0.334 0.285
11 0.345 0.258
12 0.267 0.216
13 0.308 0.376
14 0.258 0.152
15 0.287 0.188
16 0.343 0.202
17 0.322 0.120
18 0.332 0.392
19 0.293 0.240
20 0.169 0.183
21 0.128 0.200
22 0.234 0.207
23 0.149 0.203
24 0.165 0.139
25 0.169 0.174
26 0.255 0.191
27 0.253 0.148
28 0.366 0.290
29 0.277 0.226
30 0.184 0.183
31 0.206 0.179
32 0.380 0.323
33 0.217 0.241
34 0.233 0.265
35 0.188 0.204
36 0.347 0.300
37 0.222 0.276
38 0.196 0.416
39 0.268 0.397
40 0.306 0.257
41 0.259 0.363
42 0.226 0.340
43 0.219 0.359

Correlation
coefficientb
0.534*

aGuyatt’s responsiveness index.

bCorrelation coefficient between WURSS-K and WURSS.

*P < 0.001.

DISCUSSION

Reliability refers to the consistency of a result, ie, if the scores from one experiment can be trusted.25 Internal reliability defines the consistency of the results delivered in a test, ensuring that the various items measuring different constructs yield consistent scores.30 Internal reliability can be measured between similar items in the same domain within the same test. In the internal reliability test, most domains of the WURSS-K had Cronbach’s alphas indicating respectable or very good reliability. The smallest alpha was 0.666, for the “aches” domain. A potential reason for this result is that it includes 2 items, “body aches” and “swollen glands,” which are not closely related. Similarly, the “aches” domain showed low consistency in the WURSS study21 (0.624). In addition, the correlation coefficient between the WURSS-K and WURSS was 0.710 (P = 0.02),21 which means that the WURSS-K and WURSS showed a similar trend in reliability coefficients across domains. In the development of an abbreviated version of the WURSS-K (similar to the WURSS-21, which used only 21 of the 44 items on the WURSS to improve its responsiveness21), the “aches” domain and domains with a coefficient alpha greater than 0.90 might be cancelled or adjusted.

The convergent validity did not meet expectations because the Pearson correlation between the 4-week recall of SF-8 and the WURSS-K was −0.267 (P = 0.007), indicating a low correlation. This convergent validity was lower than that between the 24-hour recall of SF-8 and the WURSS, which ranged from −0.60 to −0.84 (P < 0.001) from day 2 through day 5. This discrepancy is attributable to differences in the recall time of the SF-8, ie, 4-week recall (present study) vs 24-hour recall (WURSS study), the small number of participants, and the narrow age range of the participants enrolled in this research. The evaluation of convergent validity is also limited because it was compared only with the SF-8. Participants from a broader range of age groups and additional instruments such as the Jackson scale will be necessary in future studies.

As for responsiveness, the maximum was 0.46, for the first item, which concerned global condition and was thus expected to display maximum responsiveness. The second maximum was 0.38, for the 32nd item (tiredness), and the minimum value was 0.13, for the 21st item (sinus pressure). The correlation coefficient between responsiveness of the WURSS-K and WURSS was 0.534 (P < 0.001), which indirectly proves that the WURSS-K sensitively reflected changes in symptoms.

In summary, the Korean translation of the WURSS was almost equivalent to the WURSS in reliability, validity, and responsiveness and is therefore appropriate for assessing the severity of the common cold in Korean patients.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was supported by a grant from the Oriental Medicine R&D Project (B070029) of the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Family Affairs, Republic of Korea. The authors thank Bruce Barrett, MD, associate professor at Wisconsin University, for allowing us to use the WURSS.

Conflicts of interest: None declared.

REFERENCES

  • 1.Wat D The common cold: a review of the literature . Eur J Intern Med. 2004;15:79–88 10.1016/j.ejim.2004.01.006 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Benson V , Marano MA. Current estimates from the National Health Interview Survey, 1995 . Vital Health Stat 10. 1998;(199):1–428 [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service. 2008 Annual statistics and indicators of medical expenses. Seoul: Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service; 2009. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Heikkinen T , Järvinen A. The common cold . Lancet. 2003;361:51–9 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12162-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Hurst JR , Donaldson GC , Wilkinson TM , Perera WR , Wedzicha JA. Epidemiological relationships between the common cold and exacerbation frequency in COPD . Eur Respir J. 2005;26:846–52 10.1183/09031936.05.00043405 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Smith MB , Feldman W. Over-the-counter cold medications. A critical review of clinical trials between 1950 and 1991 . JAMA. 1993;269:2258–63 10.1001/jama.269.17.2258 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Yale SH , Liu K. Echinacea purpurea therapy for the treatment of the common cold: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial . Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:1237–41 10.1001/archinte.164.11.1237 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Lizogub VG , Riley DS , Heger M. Efficacy of a pelargonium sidoides preparation in patients with the common cold: a randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial . Explore (NY). 2007;3:573–84 10.1016/j.explore.2007.09.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Turner RB , Wecker MT , Pohl G , Witek TJ , McNally E , St George R , et al. Efficacy of tremacamra, a soluble intercellular adhesion molecule 1, for experimental rhinovirus infection: a randomized clinical trial . JAMA. 1999;281:1797–804 10.1001/jama.281.19.1797 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Prasad AS , Beck FW , Bao B , Snell D , Fitzgerald JT. Duration and severity of symptoms and levels of plasma interleukin-1 receptor antagonist, soluble tumor necrosis factor receptor, and adhesion molecules in patients with common cold treated with zinc acetate . J Infect Dis. 2008;197:795–802 10.1086/528803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Barrett B , Brown R , Voland R , Maberry R , Turner R. Relations among questionnaire and laboratory measures of rhinovirus infection . Eur Respir J. 2006;28:358–63 10.1183/09031936.06.00002606 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Turner RB The treatment of rhinovirus infections: progress and potential . Antiviral Res. 2001;49:1–14 10.1016/S0166-3542(00)00135-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Monto AS , Bryan ER , Ohmit S. Rhinovirus infections in Tecumseh, Michigan: frequency of illness and number of serotypes . J Infect Dis. 1987;156:43–9 10.1093/infdis/156.1.43 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Yang SY , Byun JS , Hwang JH , An JJ , Hong KE , Kang W , et al. Study of instruments for assessment and clinical research trends in common cold . J Korean Oriental Med. 2008;29:165–81 [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Barrett B , Locken K , Maberry R , Schwamman J , Brown R , Bobula J , et al. The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey (WURSS): a new research instrument for assessing the common cold . J Fam Pract. 2002;51:265. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Jackson GG , Dowling HF , Spiesman IG , Boand AV. Transmission of the common cold to volunteers under controlled conditions. I. The common cold as a clinical entity . AMA Arch Intern Med. 1958;101:267–78 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Jackson GG , Dowling HF , Anderson TO , Riff L , Saporta J , Turck M. Susceptibility and immunity to common upper respiratory viral infections—the common cold . Ann Intern Med. 1960;53:719–38 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Jackson GG , Dowling HF , Muldoon RL. Acute respiratory diseases of viral etiology. VII. Present concepts of the common cold . Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1962;52:940–5 10.2105/AJPH.52.6.940 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Patrick G , Hickner J. This obscure herb works for the common cold . J Fam Pract. 2008;57:157–61 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jacobs B , Young NL , Dick PT , Ipp MM , Dutkowski R , Davies HD , et al. Canadian Acute Respiratory Illness and Flu Scale (CARIFS): development of a valid measure for childhood respiratory infections . J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:793–9 10.1016/S0895-4356(99)00238-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Barrett B , Brown R , Mundt M , Safdar N , Dye L , Maberry R , et al. The Wisconsin Upper Respiratory Symptom Survey is responsive, reliable, and valid . J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:609–17 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.11.019 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Walter MJ , Castro M , Kunselman SJ , Chinchilli VM , Reno M , Ramkumar TP , et al. Predicting worsening asthma control following the common cold . Eur Respir J. 2008;32:1548–54 10.1183/09031936.00026808 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Barrett B , Brown R , Mundt M. Comparison of anchor-based and distributional approaches in estimating important difference in common cold . Qual Life Res. 2008;17:75–85 10.1007/s11136-007-9277-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Barrett B , Rakel D , Chewning B , Marchand L , Rabago D , Brown R , et al. Rationale and methods for a trial assessing placebo, echinacea, and doctor-patient interaction in the common cold . Explore (NY). 2007;3:561–72 10.1016/j.explore.2007.08.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Campbell DT , Fiske DW. Convergent and discriminant validation by themultitrait-multimethodmatrix . Psychol Bull. 1959;56:81–105 10.1037/h0046016 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guyatt G , Walter S , Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments . J Chronic Dis. 1987;40:171–8 10.1016/0021-9681(87)90069-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Guyatt GH , Osoba D , Wu AW , Wyrwich KW , Norman GR ; Clinical Significance Consensus Meeting Group . Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures . Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77(4):371–83 10.4065/77.4.371 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Devellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. Newbury: Sage; 1991. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Testa MA , Simonson DC. Assesment of quality-of-life outcomes . N Engl J Med. 1996;334:835–40 10.1056/NEJM199603283341306 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology are provided here courtesy of Japan Epidemiological Association

RESOURCES