4.5 Article

Psychometric properties of the Swedish PedsQL, Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0 generic core scales

Journal

ACTA PAEDIATRICA
Volume 98, Issue 9, Pages 1504-1512

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1111/j.1651-2227.2009.01360.x

Keywords

Child; PedsQL; Quality of life; Sweden; Validation studies

Categories

Funding

  1. Vardal Foundation
  2. AFA insurances
  3. County Council of Vasterbotten
  4. Queen Silvia's Jubilee Fund
  5. Oscar Foundation

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To study the psychometric performance of the Swedish version of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL) 4.0 generic core scales in a general child population in Sweden. Methods: PedsQL forms were distributed to 2403 schoolchildren and 888 parents in two different school settings. Reliability and validity was studied for self-reports and proxy reports, full forms and short forms. Confirmatory factor analysis tested the factor structure and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis tested measurement invariance between boys and girls. Results: Test-retest reliability was demonstrated for all scales and internal consistency reliability was shown with alpha value exceeding 0.70 for all scales but one (self-report short form: social functioning). Child-parent agreement was low to moderate. The four-factor structure of the PedsQL and factorial invariance across sex subgroups were confirmed for the self-report forms and for the proxy short form, while model fit indices suggested improvement of several proxy full-form scales. Conclusion: The Swedish PedsQL 4.0 generic core scales are a reliable and valid tool for health-related quality of life (HRQoL) assessment in Swedish child populations. The proxy full form, however, should be used with caution. The study also support continued use of the PedsQL as a four-factor model, capable of revealing meaningful HRQoL differences between boys and girls.

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