ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2019
Development and calibration of a novel social relationship item bank to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Singapore.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2019. 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.
- Development and validation of the general module of the quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLICD-GM(V2.0) : a large sample study based on classical test theory and item response theory.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2026Article
- Article
- Calibration of a physical functioning item bank for measurement of health-related quality of life in Singapore.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2020Article
- Developing item banks to measure three important domains of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in Singapore.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2020Article
- Development and calibration of a novel positive mindset item bank to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Singapore.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSocial relationships (SR) is an important domain of health-related quality of life. We developed and calibrated a novel item bank to measure SR in Singapore, a multi-ethnic city in Southeast Asia.
methodsWe developed an initial candidate pool of 51 items from focus groups, individual in-depth interviews and existing instruments that had been developed and/or validated for use in Singapore. We administered all items in English to a multi-stage sample of subjects, stratified for age and gender, with and without medical conditions, recruited from community and hospital settings. We calibrated their responses using Samejima's Graded Response Model (SGRM). We evaluated a final 30-item bank with respect to Item Response Theory (IRT) model assumptions, model fit, differential item functioning (DIF), and concurrent and known-groups validity.
resultsAmong 503 participants (47.7% male, 41.4% above 50 years old, 34.0% Chinese, 33.6% Malay and 32.4% Indian), bi-factor model analyses supported essential unidimensionality: explained common variance of the general factor was 0.805 and omega hierarchical was 0.98. Local independence was deemed acceptable: the average absolute residual correlations were < 0.06 and 1.8% of the total item-pair residuals were flagged for local dependence. The overall SGRM model fit was adequate (p = 0.146). Five items exhibited DIF with respect to age, ethnicity and education, but were retained without modification of scores because they measured important aspects of SR. The SR scores correlated in the hypothesized direction with a self-reported measure of global health (Spearman's rho = - 0.28, p < 0.001).
conclusionThe 30-item SR item bank has shown acceptable psychometric properties. Future studies to evaluate the validity of SR scores when items are administered adaptively are needed.
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.