Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40823236›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2025

Do we need two hammers in our toolbox? An empirical note about the potential redundancy of measuring subjective quality of life.

Otto R F Smith, Marit Knapstad, Leif Edvard Aarø

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Otto R F SmithDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.
Marit KnapstadDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.
Leif Edvard AarøDepartment of Health Promotion, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Scales for the measurement of subjective quality of life (SQoL) and psychological distress are often used as if they measure different underlying concepts. This assumption is addressed in the present study by examining the discriminant validity between a set of items measuring SQoL and both the 2-item version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2) and the 5-item version of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL-5). Methods: The present study is based on baseline data ( Results: Psychometric indices derived from the bi-factor model suggested that the SQoL instrument and the PHQ-2/HSCL-5 were essentially unidimensional. The overlap between scales was further confirmed by the finding that the associations between PHQ-2/HSCL-5 and a set of baseline correlates were similar to associations between the SQoL instrument and the same set of correlates. Conclusion: The SQoL instrument and the PHQ-2/HSCL-5 measure similar aspects for Norwegian university students. Combined with evidence from other studies, our findings suggest that using the SQoL instrument in addition to the PHQ-2 or HSCL-5 may be redundant.

Indexed as

PsychometricsQuality of LifeStudentsAdolescentAdultFemaleHumansMaleNorwayReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and QuestionnairesUniversitiesYoung AdultdepressionHopkins symptom checklistmeasurementpatient health questionnairepsychological distressquality of life

Identifiers

PMID40823236
PMCPMC12350479

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.