ArticlePloS one2017
Comparison of construct validity of two short forms of Stroke-Specific Quality of Life scale.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polish Validation of a 14-Item Version of the Religious and Spiritual Struggles Scale (RSS-14): Factorial Structure, Psychometric Properties, and Clinical Correlates.Journal of religion and health · 2023Article
- Psychometric properties of the 12-item Stroke-Specific Quality of Life Scale among stroke survivors in Hong Kong.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Cross-cultural translation, adaptation, and validation of the stroke-specific quality of life (SSQOL) scale 2.0 into Amharic language.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2023Article
- Cultural adaptation and validation of the Arabic version of the short 12-item stroke-specific quality of life scale.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Disabled woman attitude scale: Reliability and validity study.Northern clinics of Istanbul · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo studies have compared the 2-factor structures of Wong's and Post's versions of the short-form Stroke-Specific Quality of Life (i.e., 12-item SSQOL) scale. This study compared the construct validity of 2 short-forms of the 12-item-SSQOL (not the 12-domain-SSQOL).
methodsData were obtained from a previous validation study of the original 49-item SSQOL in 263 patients. Construct validity was tested by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to examine whether the two-factor structure, including psychosocial and physical domains, was supported in both versions. The CFA tested the data-model fit by indices: chi-square χ2/df ratio, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), comparative fit index (CFI), nonnormative fit index (NNFI), standard root mean square residual (SRMR), and parsimony normed fit index (PNFI). Item factor loadings (cutoffs: .50) were examined. Model fit was compared using Akaike information criterion (AIC) and consistent AIC (i.e., CAIC) values.
resultsAll model fit indices for Post's version fell within expected ranges: χ2/df ratio = 2.02, RMSEA = 0.05, CFI = 0.97, NNFI = 0.97, SRMR = 0.06, and PNFI = 0.76. In the psychosocial domain, the item factor loadings ranged from 0.46 to 0.63. In the physical domain, all items (except the language and vision items) had acceptable factor loadings (0.68 to 0.88). However, in Wong's version, none of the model indices met the criteria for good fit. In model fit comparisons, Post's version had smaller AIC and CAIC values than did Wong's version.
conclusionsAll fit indices supported Post's version, but not Wong's version. The construct validity of Post's version with a 2-factor structure was confirmed, and this version of the 12-item SSQOL is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.