Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31365554›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Development and calibration of a novel positive mindset item bank to measure health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in Singapore.

Yu Heng Kwan, Elenore Judy Uy, Dianne Carrol Bautista, Xiaohui Xin, Yunshan Xiao, Geok Ling Lee, Mythily Subramaniam, Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar, Mei Fen Chan, Nisha Kumar and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Developing a quality of life framework from the perspective of laypeople: a qualitative comparison with the EQ-HWB framework.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

13 authors.

Yu Heng KwanProgram in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Elenore Judy UyDepartment of Rheumatology & Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0003-1062-8638
Dianne Carrol BautistaSingapore Clinical Research Institute, Singapore, Singapore.
Xiaohui XinAcademic Clinical Programme for Medicine, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Yunshan XiaoDepartment of Rheumatology & Immunology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Singapore.
Geok Ling LeeDepartment of Social Work, Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Mythily SubramaniamResearch Department, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.
Janhavi Ajit VaingankarResearch Department, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore.
Mei Fen ChanHealth Promotion Board, Singapore, Singapore.
Nisha KumarHealth Promotion Board, Singapore, Singapore.
Yin Bun CheungCentre for Quantitative Medicine, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.
Terrance Siang Jin ChuaDepartment of Cardiology, National Heart Centre Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Julian ThumbooProgram in Health Services and Systems Research, Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-6712-5535

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPositive mindset (PM) is an important domain of health-related quality of life in Singapore, a multi-ethnic urban city state in Southeast Asia. We therefore developed and calibrated a novel item bank to measure and improve PM.

methodsWe developed an initial candidate pool of 48 items from focus groups, in-depth interviews and existing instruments locally developed and validated for use in Singapore. We administered all items in English to a multi-stage sample stratified for age and gender, of subjects with and without medical conditions recruited from the community and a hospital, and calibrated their responses using Samejima's Graded Response Model. We evaluated a final 36-item bank with respect to Item Response Theory (IRT) model assumptions, model fit, differential item functioning (DIF), concurrent and known-groups validity.

resultsAmong 493 participants (49.3% male, 41.6% above 50 years old, 33% Chinese, Malay and Indian), bifactor model analyses supported unidimensionality: explained common variance of the general factor was 0.86 and omega hierarchical was 0.97. Local independence was deemed acceptable: the average absolute residual correlations were <0.06 and 3.3% of the total item-pair residuals were flagged for local dependence. The overall model fit was adequate and provided good coverage of the PM construct (theta range: -3.6 to +2.4). Five items exhibited DIF with respect to ethnicity and gender, but were retained without modification of scores because they measured important aspects of PM. Scores correlated in the hypothesized direction with a self-reported measure of global health (Spearman's rho = -0.28, p<0.001) and discriminated between groups of participants with and without a self-reported diagnosis of a mood disorder (p = 0.007) adjusting for age, gender, ethnicity, education and marital status.

conclusionThe 36-item PM item bank demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties for the English-speaking Singaporean population. IRT model assumptions were sufficiently met and scores showed concurrent and known-groups validity. Future studies to evaluate the validity of PM scores when items are administered adaptively are needed.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeAdultChronic DiseaseFemaleFocus GroupsHealth StatusHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsSelf ReportSingaporeSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID31365554
PMCPMC6668803

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.