Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24894812›Full record

ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2014

Development and validation of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-CHD: combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability Theory.

Chonghua Wan, Hezhan Li, Xuejin Fan, Ruixue Yang, Jiahua Pan, Wenru Chen, Rong Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Patient-centered care in Coronary Heart Disease: what do you want to measure? A systematic review of reviews on patient-reported outcome measures.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2023
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Do patients have a say? A narrative review of the development of patient-reported outcome measures used in elective procedures for coronary revascularisation.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Chonghua WanSchool of Humanities and Management, Guangdong Medical College, Dongguan 523808, China. wanchh@hotmail.com.
Hezhan Li
Xuejin Fan
Ruixue Yang
Jiahua Pan
Wenru Chen
Rong Zhao
Guangdong Medical College · CNGuangdong University of Education · CNKunming Medical University · CNShenzhen Chronic Disease Prevention Center · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundQuality of life (QOL) for patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) is now concerned worldwide with the specific instruments being seldom and no one developed by the modular approach.

objectivesThis paper is aimed to develop the CHD scale of the system of Quality of Life Instruments for Chronic Diseases (QLICD-CHD) by the modular approach and validate it by both classical test theory and Generalizability Theory.

methodsThe QLICD-CHD was developed based on programmed decision procedures with multiple nominal and focus group discussions, in-depth interview, pre-testing and quantitative statistical procedures. 146 inpatients with CHD were used to provide the data measuring QOL three times before and after treatments. The psychometric properties of the scale were evaluated with respect to validity, reliability and responsiveness employing correlation analysis, factor analyses, multi-trait scaling analysis, t-tests and also G studies and D studies of Genralizability Theory analysis.

resultsMulti-trait scaling analysis, correlation and factor analyses confirmed good construct validity and criterion-related validity when using SF-36 as a criterion. The internal consistency α and test-retest reliability coefficients (Pearson r and Intra-class correlations ICC) for the overall instrument and all domains were higher than 0.70 and 0.80 respectively; The overall and all domains except for social domain had statistically significant changes after treatments with moderate effect size SRM (standardized response mea) ranging from 0.32 to 0.67. G-coefficients and index of dependability (Ф coefficients) confirmed the reliability of the scale further with more exact variance components.

conclusionsThe QLICD-CHD has good validity, reliability, and moderate responsiveness and some highlights, and can be used as the quality of life instrument for patients with CHD. However, in order to obtain better reliability, the numbers of items for social domain should be increased or the items' quality, not quantity, should be improved.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCoronary DiseaseFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, PsychologicalPsychometricsReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID24894812
PMCPMC4229878
OpenAlexW2110774241

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.