Abstract
BackgroundThe Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) is a prevalent face-to-face interview method for measuring quality of life by integrating respondent-generated dimensions. To apply this method in clinical trials, a paper-administered alternative would be of interest. Therefore, our study aimed to analyze the agreement between the SEIQoL-DW and a paper questionnaire version (SEIQoL-PF/G).MethodsIn a crossover design, both measures were completed in a random sequence. 104 patients at a heart surgery hospital in Germany were randomly assigned to receive either the SEIQoL-DW or the SEIQoL-PF/G as the first measurement in the sequence. Patients were approached on their earliest stable day after surgery. The average time between both measurements was 1 day (mean 1.3; SD 0.8).Agreement regarding the indices, ratings, and weightings of nominated life areas (cues) was explored using Bland-Altman plots with 95% limits of agreement (LoA). Agreement of the SEIQoL indices was defined as acceptable if the LoA did not exceed a threshold of 10 scale points. Data from n = 99 patients were included in the agreement analysis.ResultsBoth measures led to similarly nominated cues. The most frequently nominated cues were “physical health” and “family”.In the Bland-Altman plot, the indices showed a mean of differences of 2 points (95% CI, − 1 to 6). The upper LoA showed a difference of 36 points (95% CI, 30 to 42), and the lower LoA showed a difference of − 31 points (95% CI, − 37 to − 26). Thus, the LoAs and confidence intervals exceeded the predefined threshold. The Bland-Altman plots for the cue levels and cue weights showed similar results.The SEIQoL-PF/G version showed a tendency for equal weighting of cues, while the weighting procedure of the SEIQoL-DW led to greater variability.ConclusionsFor cardiac surgery patients, use of the current version of the SEIQoL-PF/G as a substitute for the SEIQoL-DW is not recommended.The current questionnaire weighting method seems to be unable to distinguish weighting for different cues. Therefore, the further design of a weighting method without interviewer support as a paper-administered measure of individual quality of life is desirable.
Highlights
The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) is a prevalent face-to-face interview method for measuring quality of life by integrating respondent-generated dimensions
Convergent and discriminant validity of the SEIQoL-DW can be described as moderate-to-high for global Quality of life (QoL), life satisfaction, and mental health but weak for the functional status and health measures [10]
We describe the methods and results of our study according to the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies (GRRAS) checklist [20]
Summary
The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW) is a prevalent face-to-face interview method for measuring quality of life by integrating respondent-generated dimensions. The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life (SEIQoL) [5,6,7] is a measure that allows respondent-generated QoL dimensions This measure is an interview-based assessment of QoL from an individual’s perspective. In contrast to researcher-generated instruments that use predefined QoL dimensions, the SEIQoL offers the opportunity to nominate, weight, and rate dimensions that are considered important for QoL from an individual’s unique perspective. This approach requires more time and effort during the data collection phase. Convergent and discriminant validity of the SEIQoL-DW can be described as moderate-to-high for global QoL, life satisfaction, and mental health but weak for the functional status and health measures [10]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
