Table 2.
Psychometric evaluation of diabetes specific health related QOL measures.
| Instrument | Reliability | Validity | Responsiveness | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cronbach’s α | Test– Retest |
Scale Analyses | ||
| Audit of Diabetes-Dependent QOL measure (ADDQOL) | 0.85–0.92 | - | Factor analysis: All items loading >0.40 on one factor, all items loading >0.50 on one factor; item–total correlations: 0.37–0.67 | - |
| Differences between groups Better QOL associated with: non-insulin treated patients; less frequent hypoglycemia; fewer disease complications; flexible dietary regimen | ||||
| Appraisal of diabetes scale (ADS) | 0.73 | 0.85–0.89 | Principal components analysis: single factor explaining 39% variance; item–remainder correlations 0.28–0.59 |
- |
| Convergent validity Diabetes Health Belief Questionnaire-Revised r = 0.31–0.42; Diabetic Daily Hassles Scale r = 0.59; Perceived Stress Scale r = 0.39–0.58 | ||||
| Asian Diabetes Quality of Life (AsianDQOL) | 0.719–0.917 | 0.60 | Confirmatory factor analysis: GFI = 0.88 | - |
| Differences between groups The component of diet and eating habits were significant in both the English language and Chinese–Mandarin versions but were not in the Malay language | ||||
| Chinese short versions DQOL | 0.884 | - | Confirmatory factor analysis Standardized root mean squared residual 0.078, Comparative fit index 0.726 |
- |
| 0.822 | ||||
| Diabetes Care Profile (DCP) | 0.60–0.95 | - | Confirmatory factor analysis: GFI = 0.92 | - |
| Convergent validity Social Provisions Scale: r = −0.34 to 0.32 CES-D: r = −0.53–0.48; Happiness and Satisfaction Scale: r = −0.27 to 0.32 | ||||
| Differences between groups Not using insulin was associated with less impact on personal/social life, fewer control problems, positive outlook; number of complications (among those taking insulin) was associated with more impact on social/personal life | ||||
| Diabetes Health Profile (DHP) | - | Factor analyses: 33–35%, 32%, 40–46% of total variance explained; scale inter correlations: 0.13–0.57; item correlations: 0.47–0.75; inter-item correlations: 0.30–0.70 |
- | |
| 0.77–0.86 | External validity Coefficient of congruence: sex, 0.92–0.93; age, 0.93–0.99; language, 0.98–0.99 |
|||
| 0.72–0.79 | Convergent validity Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, r = 0.28–0.62; SF-36 r = −0.21 to −0.68, 0.07–0.65 (DHP items reverse-coded) |
|||
| 0.70–0.88 | Differences between groups Younger women were more likely to be affected with psychological distress and eating disturbance than men |
|||
| Diabetes Impact Measurement Scales (DIMS) | 0.60–0.94 | - | Scale intercorrelations: 0.49–0.97; principal components analysis: single factor accounting for 32% variance |
- |
| Convergent validity Patient-rated diabetes control r = 0.22–0.55; Clinician-rated diabetes control r = 0.24–0.35; patient-rated general wellness r = 0.27–0.47; clinician-rated general wellness r = 0.29–0.45 | ||||
| Diabetes Obstacles Questionnaire (DOQ) | 0.766 | - | variance explained ≥ 55%, | - |
| 0.813 | ||||
| 0.866 | ||||
| 0.834 | ||||
| 0.937 | Correlation coefficient 0.86–0.271 | |||
| 0.851 | ||||
| 0.776 | ||||
| 0.880 | ||||
| Diabetes Quality of Life Clinical Trial Questionnaire (DQLCTQ-R) | 0.77–0.89 | - | Differences between groups Perceived control of diabetes is associated with better QOL, among male IDDM patients |
Four domains were responsive to clinical change in metabolic control |
| Diabetes Quality of Life (DQOL) | 0.67–0.88, | 0.78–0.92 | Scale intercorrelations: r = 0.26–0.68, 0.47–0.87 Test–retest: 0.78–0.92 Convergent/discriminatory validity Symptom Checklist Global Severity Index r = 0.40–0.77; Affect Balance Scale r = −0.25 to −0.67; Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale r = 0.06–0.81; SF-36 r = −0.003 to 0.59 Differences between groups Adult males reported less diabetes impact, fewer worries than adult females; number of complications associated with less satisfaction had a greater impact; taking insulin associated with less satisfaction and a greater impact; not taking insulin associated with worry |
- |
| Diabetes Quality of Life Revised version DQOL-R | 0.67–0.88 | 0.78–0.92 | Scale intercorrelations: r = 0.26–0.68, 0.47–0.87 | - |
| Convergent/discriminatory validity Symptom Checklist Global Severity Index r = 0.40–0.77; Affect Balance Scale r = −0.25 to −0.67; Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale | ||||
| r = 0.06–0.81; SF-36 r = −0.003 to 0.59 | ||||
| Diabetes-specific Quality of life Scale (DSQOLS) |
0.70–0.93 | - | Goodness of fit index = 0.98; scale intercorrelations r = 0.28–0.66 Convergent validity Positive well-being scale r = 0.35–0.53 |
- |
| Differences between groups Age r = _0.23–0.01; social status r = _0.04–0.24; better QOL associated with greater flexibility of insulin treatment, fewer complications and use of rapid-acting insulin | ||||
| DQOL Brief Clinical Inventory | 0.61–0.94 | - | Five significant principal components that accounted for 9.23–15.35% of the total item variance each and 56.73% of the total item variance collectively. |
- |
| Convergent validity Treatment satisfaction, the six-item model r = 0.254–0.562, | ||||
| Differences between groups For worry about diabetes-related events, or for females for diabetes impact, no differences between the two groups | ||||
| Elderly Diabetes Burden Scale (EDBS) | 0.55–0.89 | 0.94–0.99 | Six-factor solution explaining 69.4% of variance |
- |
| Convergent validity Philadelphia geriatric center morale scale r = _0.51; Geriatric depression scale r = 0.27–0.57 | ||||
| Differences between groups It was reported that higher scores were seen among women’s dietary restrictions, worry, and less satisfaction of treatment, also more adaptive feeling to diabetes when compared to men | ||||
| Iranian Diabetes Quality of Life (IRDQOL) | 0.98 | - | Concurrent validity 0.639 | - |
| Differences between groups Quality of life has been found to be higher in males than females [22,23,24]. It seems sex can be considered | ||||
| Malay version of Diabetes Quality of Life (DQOL) | 0.846–0.941 | - | Correlation coefficients for the three domains were between 0.228 and 0.451 | - |
|
Differences between groups Retinopathy group had a sizeable effect (mean score of 2.0 compared to no retinopathy group versus 2.7 from retinopathy group) | ||||
| Problem Areas in Diabetes Scale (PAID) | 0.93–0.95 | r = 0.83 | Large single factor explaining 50–52% of variance; item–total correlations: r = 0.32 to 0. 84; all >0.30 | Effect sizes range from 0.32 to 0.65 for interventions |
|
Convergent validity Global Severity Index of Brief Symptom Inventory r = 0.63; ATT39 r = −0.22 to −0.81; Diabetes Coping Measure-avoidance r = 0.05–0.59; Diabetes Coping Measure-passive resignation r = −0.01 to 0.70; Diabetes Coping Measure-tackling spirit r = −0.13 to −0.82; Well- Being Questionnaire r = −0.50 to −0.53; Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (Worry) r = 0.53–0.57; State Trait Anxiety Inventory r = 0.61 | ||||
|
Differences between groups IDDM reported more diabetes-related distress than NIDDM patients |