↓ Skip to main content

Validity and test retest reliability of the vascular quality of life Questionnaire-6: a short form of a disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for patients with peripheral…

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 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
Validity and test retest reliability of the vascular quality of life Questionnaire-6: a short form of a disease-specific health-related quality of life instrument for patients with peripheral arterial disease
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0762-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christine Kumlien, Joakim Nordanstig, Mats Lundström, Monica Pettersson

Abstract

Many existing patient-reported outcome measures are extensive regarding both patient burden and administration, and in terms of analysing and reporting results. The VascuQoL-6 (VQ6) - a short version of the original Vascular Quality of Life Questionnaire (VascuQoL), a disease-specific instrument for peripheral arterial disease - was recently developed. However, the VQ6 has not yet been empirical tested with regard to content validity, construct validity and test retest reliability. Our aim was, therefore, to explore both the validity and the reliability of the VQ-6 in a target population with established peripheral arterial disease. Two hundred patients treated at two vascular centres were consecutively recruited for the survey. Administered questionnaires included VQ6 and the Short Form Health Survey-36 (SF-36). Out of the 200 patients, 150 also received a second VQ6 questionnaire for a test-retest assessment. Further, a purposive sample of 22 patients consented to participate in cognitive interviews. All included patients suffer from peripheral arterial disease. The questionnaire data was tested by both Rasch analysis and traditional psychometric methods, while the cognitive interviews were analysed descriptively. The validity and reliability of the VQ6, as tested in a target population without the surrounding 19 items from the original VascuQoL, was high, in general, and a good fit to the Rasch model was observed. Further, an excellent internal consistency and significant correlations between comparable dimensions in SF-36 were demonstrated. In the test-retest analysis, the percentage agreement was somewhat poor (<70%) in the six items. However, no systematic disagreements between the two assessments were seen in any of the six items, and the test-retest assessment for the VQ6 sum score showed an acceptable intraclass correlation coefficient (0.86). Finally, all items in the VQ6 were considered as both understandable and relevant by the interviewed patients. The VQ6 has acceptable to good psychometric properties with regard to data quality, scale assumptions, targeting, validity and reliability. Further, VQ6 seems to be easy to use and comprehend within the target population of patients with PAD.

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 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 18%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 7%
Other 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 11 25%
Unknown 10 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 9%
Arts and Humanities 2 5%
Psychology 2 5%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 14 32%
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 30 September 2017.
All research outputs
#17,916,739
of 23,003,906 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,512
of 2,186 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#229,856
of 321,103 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#39
of 63 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,003,906 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 2,186 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 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 321,103 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 63 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.