ArticleThe Journal of cardiovascular nursing2025
Psychometric Testing of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire 12 in A European Population.
Article in The Journal of cardiovascular nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- The Heartbeat of Global Health.European journal of cardiovascular nursing · 2025Article
- The Heartbeat of Global Health: Advancing Cardiovascular Care Through International Nursing Research.The Journal of cardiovascular nursingArticle
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
introductionThe Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) is one of the most widely used instruments for measuring health-related quality of life of patients with heart failure (HF). However, its 12-item version (KCCQ-12) was not sufficiently tested in European populations, and its invariance in patients with reduced, midrange, and preserved ejection fraction has never been assessed.
aimsThe purpose of this study is to examine the validity and reliability of the KCCQ-12 in a large cohort of Italian patients with HF and assess its measurement invariance across levels of ejection fraction.
methodsA total of 510 patients (mean age = 72 years, 58% males) completed the KCCQ-12 alongside other measures of depression, anxiety, quality of life, and HF symptom burden. Construct validity was assessed by means of a confirmatory factor analysis and by testing the association of the KCCQ-12 scores with clinical parameters (ie, ejection fraction and mortality at 12 months) as well as measures of anxiety, depression, symptom burden, and general quality of life. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis was implemented to investigate invariance properties across those with reduced, midrange, and preserved ejection fraction. Omega and model-based internal consistency coefficients were computed to investigate internal consistency reliability.
resultsThe confirmatory factor analysis specified according to the original 4-factor model (ie, physical and social limitations, symptom frequency, and quality of life) yielded satisfactory fit indices (root mean square error of approximation = 0.053, comparative fit index = 0.98). Moderate-to-high correlations were found between the KCCQ-12 and the mental and physical component scores of the Short Form 12, as well as other conceptually related constructs, indicating adequate facets of construct validity. Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis tested across patients with different ejection fraction groups, established that the KCCQ-12 was invariant at the partial scalar level. Omega and model-based internal consistency coefficients were adequate, ranging from 0.75 to 0.90 for the subscales, and 0.94 for the whole scale, confirming strong internal consistency reliability.
conclusionsThe KCCQ-12 demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties in our European sample of patients with HF, providing evidence to support its use in practice and further research.
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.