↓ Skip to main content

Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the autoimmune bullous disease quality of life (ABQOL) questionnaire

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
21 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the autoimmune bullous disease quality of life (ABQOL) questionnaire
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0594-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Baoqi Yang, Guo Chen, Qing Yang, Xiaoxiao Yan, Zhaoxia Zhang, Dédée F. Murrell, Furen Zhang

Abstract

The autoimmune bullous diseases quality of life (ABQOL) questionnaire was recently developed by an Australian group and has been validated in Australian and North American patient cohorts. It is a 17-item, multidimensional, self-administered English questionnaire. The study aimed to validate the Chinese version of the ABQOL questionnaire and evaluate the reliability in Chinese patients. The Chinese version of the ABQOL questionnaire was produced by forward-backward translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the original English version. The ABQOL questionnaire was then distributed to a total of 101 patients with autoimmune bullous diseases (AIBDs) together with the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) and the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36). Validity was analyzed across a range of indices and reliability was assessed using internal consistency and test-retest methods. The Chinese version of the ABQOL questionnaire has a high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha coefficient, 0.88) and test-retest reliability (the intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.87). Face and content validity were satisfactory. Convergent validity testing showed that the correlation coefficients for the ABQOL and DLQI was 0.77 and for the ABQOL and SF-36 was -0.62. In terms of discriminant validity, there was no significant difference between the proportions of insensitive items in ABQOL and DLQI (p = 0.236). There was no significant difference between the proportions of insensitive items in ABQOL and SF-36 (p = 0.823). The Chinese version of the ABQOL questionnaire has adequate validity and reliability. It may constitute a useful instrument to measure disease burden in Chinese patients with AIBDs.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 21 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 21 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 10%
Researcher 2 10%
Lecturer 1 5%
Other 2 10%
Unknown 8 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 6 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 5%
Sports and Recreations 1 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 9 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2017.
All research outputs
#17,873,766
of 22,950,943 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,499
of 2,180 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#293,520
of 420,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#29
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,950,943 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,180 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 420,304 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.