4.5 Article

The development and validation of a patient-reported quality of life measure for people with mild cognitive impairment

Journal

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
Volume 26, Issue 3, Pages 487-497

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S1041610213002251

Keywords

quality of life (QoL); mild cognitive impairment; cognitive impairment; clinical assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: No validated patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) exists specifically to assess quality of life in mild cognitive impairment (MCI); we report a study conducted to develop such a measure. Methods: Semi-structured in-depth interviews were carried out with 23 people with MCI in order to determine items for a draft questionnaire. These interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and content analyzed. The draft questionnaire was refined following feedback from a focus group. 280 questionnaires were posted to subjects recruited from memory clinics and research databases, the response rate was 56% i.e. 146 questionnaires were included in the final analysis. The completed questionnaires were analyzed using factor analytic techniques to produce the final measure; construct validity was assessed by correlation with a generic patient-reported outcome measure, the SF-12v2. Results: Factor analysis produced a 13-item measure tapping two domains of patient-reported quality of life (Emotional Effects and Practical Concerns). Internal consistency reliability was high for both domains (alpha was 0.91 and 0.85 respectively). Both dimensions were highly and significantly correlated with the Mental Component Summary score of the SF-12v2 (emotional effects rho = -0.43, p < 0.001 and practical concerns rho = -0.56, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The Mild Cognitive Impairment Questionnaire (MCQ) is a 13-item measure developed specifically to measure patient-reported outcomes in people with MCI. It was created on the basis of patient report and has been shown to have good psychometric properties. It is likely to prove valuable in the evaluation of treatment regimes in this patient group.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available