A Web-Based Adaptation of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder Questionnaire: Psychometric Evaluation Study.
bipolar disorder
patient reported outcomes
psychometrics
quality of life
questionnaire design
survey methodology
validation studies
Journal
JMIR mental health
ISSN: 2368-7959
Titre abrégé: JMIR Ment Health
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101658926
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 Apr 2020
27 Apr 2020
Historique:
received:
17
12
2019
accepted:
09
02
2020
entrez:
28
4
2020
pubmed:
28
4
2020
medline:
28
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Quality of life (QoL) is considered a key treatment outcome in bipolar disorder (BD) across research, clinical, and self-management contexts. Web-based assessment of patient-reported outcomes offer numerous pragmatic benefits but require validation to ensure measurement equivalency. A web-based version of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) questionnaire was developed (QoL Tool). This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a web-based QoL self-report questionnaire for BD (QoL Tool). Key aims were to (1) characterize the QoL of the sample using the QoL Tool, (2) evaluate the internal consistency of the web-based measure, and (3) determine whether the factor structure of the original version of the QoL.BD instrument was replicated in the web-based instrument. Community-based participatory research methods were used to inform the development of a web-based adaptation of the QoL.BD instrument. Individuals with BD who registered for an account with the QoL Tool were able to opt in to sharing their data for research purposes. The distribution of scores and internal consistency estimates, as indicated by Cronbach alpha, were inspected. An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood and oblique rotation was conducted. Inspection of the scree plot, eigenvalues, and minimum average partial correlation were used to determine the optimal factor structure to extract. A total of 498 people with BD (349/498, 70.1% female; mean age 39.64, SD 12.54 years; 181/498, 36.3% BD type I; 195/498, 39.2% BD type II) consented to sharing their QoL Tool data for the present study. Mean scores across the 14 QoL Tool domains were, in general, significantly lower than that of the original QoL.BD validation sample. Reliability estimates for QoL Tool domains were comparable with that observed for the QoL.BD instrument (Cronbach alpha=.70-.93). Exploratory factor analysis supported the extraction of an 11-factor model, with item loadings consistent with the factor structure suggested by the original study. Findings for the sleep and physical domains differed from the original study, with this analysis suggesting one shared latent construct. The psychometric properties of the web-based QoL Tool are largely concordant with the original pen-and-paper QoL.BD, although some minor differences in the structure of the sleep and physical domains were observed. Despite this small variation from the factor structure identified in the QoL.BD instrument, the latent factor structure of the QoL Tool largely reproduced the original findings and theoretical structure of QoL areas relevant to people with BD. These findings underscore the research and clinical utility of this instrument, but further comparison of the psychometric properties of the QoL Tool relative to the QoL.BD instrument is warranted. Future adaptations of the QoL Tool, including the production of an app-based version of the QoL Tool, are also discussed.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Quality of life (QoL) is considered a key treatment outcome in bipolar disorder (BD) across research, clinical, and self-management contexts. Web-based assessment of patient-reported outcomes offer numerous pragmatic benefits but require validation to ensure measurement equivalency. A web-based version of the Quality of Life in Bipolar Disorder (QoL.BD) questionnaire was developed (QoL Tool).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of a web-based QoL self-report questionnaire for BD (QoL Tool). Key aims were to (1) characterize the QoL of the sample using the QoL Tool, (2) evaluate the internal consistency of the web-based measure, and (3) determine whether the factor structure of the original version of the QoL.BD instrument was replicated in the web-based instrument.
METHODS
METHODS
Community-based participatory research methods were used to inform the development of a web-based adaptation of the QoL.BD instrument. Individuals with BD who registered for an account with the QoL Tool were able to opt in to sharing their data for research purposes. The distribution of scores and internal consistency estimates, as indicated by Cronbach alpha, were inspected. An exploratory factor analysis using maximum likelihood and oblique rotation was conducted. Inspection of the scree plot, eigenvalues, and minimum average partial correlation were used to determine the optimal factor structure to extract.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 498 people with BD (349/498, 70.1% female; mean age 39.64, SD 12.54 years; 181/498, 36.3% BD type I; 195/498, 39.2% BD type II) consented to sharing their QoL Tool data for the present study. Mean scores across the 14 QoL Tool domains were, in general, significantly lower than that of the original QoL.BD validation sample. Reliability estimates for QoL Tool domains were comparable with that observed for the QoL.BD instrument (Cronbach alpha=.70-.93). Exploratory factor analysis supported the extraction of an 11-factor model, with item loadings consistent with the factor structure suggested by the original study. Findings for the sleep and physical domains differed from the original study, with this analysis suggesting one shared latent construct.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The psychometric properties of the web-based QoL Tool are largely concordant with the original pen-and-paper QoL.BD, although some minor differences in the structure of the sleep and physical domains were observed. Despite this small variation from the factor structure identified in the QoL.BD instrument, the latent factor structure of the QoL Tool largely reproduced the original findings and theoretical structure of QoL areas relevant to people with BD. These findings underscore the research and clinical utility of this instrument, but further comparison of the psychometric properties of the QoL Tool relative to the QoL.BD instrument is warranted. Future adaptations of the QoL Tool, including the production of an app-based version of the QoL Tool, are also discussed.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32338620
pii: v7i4e17497
doi: 10.2196/17497
pmc: PMC7215515
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e17497Informations de copyright
©Emma Morton, Sharon HJ Hou, Oonagh Fogarty, Greg Murray, Steven Barnes, Colin Depp, CREST.BD, Erin Michalak. Originally published in JMIR Mental Health (http://mental.jmir.org), 27.04.2020.
Références
Psychiatr Pol. 2009 May-Jun;43(3):301-12
pubmed: 19725423
Bipolar Disord. 2010 Nov;12(7):727-40
pubmed: 21040290
Curr Opin Psychol. 2019 Aug 26;34:1-6
pubmed: 31521023
Soc Sci Med. 1995 Nov;41(10):1447-62
pubmed: 8560313
J Affect Disord. 2018 Feb;227:649-656
pubmed: 29174738
Br J Psychiatry. 2014 Dec;205(6):465-72
pubmed: 25359927
BMC Psychiatry. 2016 Feb 25;16:45
pubmed: 26915661
J Med Internet Res. 2017 Apr 07;19(4):e105
pubmed: 28389420
Depress Anxiety. 2018 Oct;35(10):953-965
pubmed: 30024639
Am J Epidemiol. 2010 Dec 1;172(11):1292-8
pubmed: 20880962
Bipolar Disord. 2012 Dec;14(8):793-6
pubmed: 23131090
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2013 Nov-Dec;20(6):531-43
pubmed: 22715161
Restor Dent Endod. 2013 Feb;38(1):52-4
pubmed: 23495371
J Affect Disord. 2016 Mar 15;193:66-72
pubmed: 26766036
Rev Med Chil. 2015 Feb;143(2):213-22
pubmed: 25860364
J Med Internet Res. 2014 Dec 03;16(12):e268
pubmed: 25472463
Clin Psychol Psychother. 2020 Feb 18;:
pubmed: 32068325
Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):419-29
pubmed: 19900250
J Affect Disord. 2016 Aug;200:58-66
pubmed: 27128358
BMC Psychiatry. 2018 Jul 13;18(1):221
pubmed: 30001704
Acta Psychiatr Scand. 2014 Jan;129(1):24-34
pubmed: 23465084
Br J Psychiatry. 2017 Sep;211(3):169-174
pubmed: 28684405
Qual Life Res. 2016 Jul;25(7):1835-44
pubmed: 26714698
Psychol Addict Behav. 2002 Mar;16(1):56-63
pubmed: 11934087
BMJ Open. 2018 Jan 31;8(1):e019203
pubmed: 29391366
Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput. 2000 Aug;32(3):396-402
pubmed: 11029811
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 May;23(3):477-84
pubmed: 26911822
J Med Internet Res. 2007 Sep 30;9(3):e25
pubmed: 17942387
J Affect Disord. 2018 Mar 15;229:351-357
pubmed: 29331693
J Affect Disord. 2016 Feb;191:88-93
pubmed: 26655117
J Clin Psychiatry. 2002 Feb;63(2):120-5
pubmed: 11874212
Br J Psychiatry. 2015 Jan;206(1):58-66
pubmed: 25213157
J Affect Disord. 2017 Apr 01;212:128-137
pubmed: 28160685
Lancet Psychiatry. 2017 Mar;4(3):208-217
pubmed: 28185899
Psychol Med. 2015 Oct;45(13):2691-704
pubmed: 26220802
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1075-83
pubmed: 19804437
JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Dec 4;6(12):e16121
pubmed: 31799936
JMIR Ment Health. 2019 Apr 15;6(4):e13493
pubmed: 30985287
BMJ Open. 2016 Mar 03;6(3):e010590
pubmed: 26940112