ArticleQuality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation2006
Is psychometric scoring of the McNew Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire superior to the clinimetric scoring? A comparison of the two approaches.
Article in Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Role of Medications in Enhancing Patients' Overall Well-being and Quality of Life in Coronary Slow Flow syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Article
- Instrument completion and validation of the patient-reported apnea questionnaire (PRAQ).Health and quality of life outcomes · 2018Article
- Psychometric evaluation of the Sinhalese version of MacNew Heart Disease Health Related Quality of Life Questionnaire in patients with stable angina.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Article
- Test-retest reliability of HeartQoL and its comparability to the MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2016Article
- Reporting of patient-centred outcomes in heart failure trials: are patient preferences being ignored?Heart failure reviews · 2015Review
- The Italian MacNew heart disease health-related quality of life questionnaire: a validation study.Internal and emergency medicine · 2015Article
- Quality-of-Life measures for cardiac surgery practice and research: a review and primer.The journal of extra-corporeal technology · 2013Review
- Patient reported outcome measures: a model-based classification system for research and clinical practice.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objective'Clinimetric' and 'psychometric' approaches are currently used to develop health related quality of life questionnaires. The Quality of Life after Myocardial Infarction questionnaire (QLMI) was originally developed using 'clinimetric' criteria; it was subsequently modified (McNew QLMI) and a new domain structure was defined using factor analysis. The objective of this study was to compare the measurement properties of the McNew QLMI scores when both approaches for scoring are used.
methodsThe McNew QLMI and SF-36 were administered to patients 2 weeks and 2 months after myocardial infarction. Two sets of scores for the McNew QLMI were computed using the original 'clinimetric' and the subsequent 'psychometrically' derived scoring systems. Reliability statistics for the two sets of domains were compared and construct validity was assessed by establishing a priori hypotheses on the expected correlation between each score and the dimensions of the SF-36.
resultsBoth sets of scores had similar reliability (Cronbach's alpha between 0.64 and 0.93) and responsiveness (SRMs between 0.17 and 0.87) while validity was better for the 'clinimetric' set of scores (concordance between observed and expected correlations was moderate for the 'clinimetric' scores and fair for the 'psychometric' scores).
conclusionSince overall measurement properties of the 'clinimetrically' scored McNew QLMI are better than the 'psychometrically' scored version, we suggest that either the original 'clinimetric' system is used or that an improved 'psychometric' version is developed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16547773What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.