Abstract
In the age of increased international collaboration in medical research, the necessity of having at hand cross-culturally applicable instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in clinical trials has been voiced. Several important theoretical bases leading to cultural bias in HRQL measurement include differences in definitions of HRQL across national and cultural contexts, levels of observation relied upon to indicate HRQL states, and the significance or weight placed upon the various HRQL states or dimensions measured. Despite a growing literature on the development and evaluation of existing HRQL measures in other cultures, comprehensive sets of procedures or requirements for the international part of development and evaluation are lacking. This paper reviews major approaches to developing international HRQL measures, and discusses various methods and criteria that have been recommended for evaluating measurement equivalence in comparisons of research across national and cultural contexts. A summary of recent trends and advances in international HRQL assessment is presented.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Hunt SM. Cross-cultural comparability of quality of life measures. Drug Information Journal 1993; 27: 395–400.
Patrick DL, Erikson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.
Spilker B, Molinek FR, Johnston KA, et al. Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care 1990; 28.
Walker SR, Rosser RH. Quality of Life Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.
Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1992.
Sartorius N. Cross-cultural and international collaboration in mental health research and action. Acta Scand Psychoa 1988; 78: 71–74.
Calman. Definitions and dimensions of quality of life. In: Aaronson N, Bekman JS, eds. The Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. New York: Raven Press, 1987.
Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Int Med 1978; 88: 251–258.
Bullinger M, Hasford J. Evaluating quality of life measures in German clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1991; 12: 915–1055.
Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, Elinson J, eds. Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Le Jacq Press, 1984.
Dressler WW, Vieteri FE, Chavez A. Comparative research in social epidemiology: measurement issues. Ethnicity Dis 1991; 1: 379–393.
Brislin RW, Lonner W, Thorndike RM. Cross Cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 1973: 51.
Sartorius N. A WHO method for the assessment of health-related quality of life (WHOQOL). In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: Key issues in the 1990s. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993: 201–207.
Hui C, Triandis HC. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. Cross Cultural Psychology 1985; 16: 131–15.
Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 369–395.
Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality Life Res 1992; 1: 349–351.
Bullinger, et al. International translations of the SF-36 Health Survey: Results of the IQOLA approach. Unpublished manuscript.
Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960/1980.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G. The functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Onc 1993; 11: 572–579.
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC core quality-of-life questinnnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osaba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991; 185–203.
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.
Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol.
Del Greco L, Walop W, Eastridge L. Questionnaire Development 3. Translation. Can Med Assoc J 1987; 136: 817–818.
Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw Hill, 1978.
Ware JE. Standards for validating health measures: definition and content. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 473–480.
DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 26. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991.
Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 142S-158S.
Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 441–449.
Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, et al. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 403–408.
Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 40: 171–178.
Bullinger M. Quality of life-definition, conceptualization and implications. The methodologist perspective. Theoretical Surgery 1991; 6: 123–137.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Preparation of this document was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, NC, and by the Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bullinger, M., Anderson, R., Cella, D. et al. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 2, 451–459 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422219
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422219