ArticleJournal of patient-reported outcomes2026
A longitudinal psychometric evaluation of a context-sensitive positive health questionnaire for measuring broad health in Dutch adults.
Article in Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- [The Context-Sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQTSG : tijdschrift voor gezondheidswetenschappen · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThe Context-sensitive Positive Health Questionnaire (CPHQ) was developed to measure broad health, grounded in Positive Health and the Capability Approach. Through co-creation with professionals from various domains and citizens, including those with lower socioeconomic position, the instrument was revised into a 28-item version. This study evaluates its psychometric properties.
methodsThis longitudinal study used a stratified sample of Dutch adults to evaluate the psychometric properties of the revised 28-item CPHQ, including factorial and concurrent validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Factorial validity was assessed using Exploratory Factor Analysis, Item Response Theory, and Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Concurrent validity was examined via correlations with existing health and wellbeing measures. Subgroup comparisons were conducted to assess known-groups validity, using independent samples t-tests or ANOVA. Mixed models and Kappa were used to assess test-retest reliability across three timepoints, controlling for life events.
resultsFactor analyses supported an eight-factor structure (mental relaxation, social acceptance, wellbeing, vitality, social support, financial resources, health literacy, mobility) explaining 59.2% of the variance, with good model fit. Internal consistency was acceptable, with composite reliability ranging from 0.59 (health literacy) to 0.90 (financial resources). Concurrent validity was supported by strong correlations with related constructs, particularly in wellbeing, vitality, and social support. Subgroup analyses confirmed hypothesized differences across gender, age, socioeconomic position, and life events, supporting the known-groups validity of the CPHQ2.0. The CPHQ2.0 showed good test-retest reliability (ICCs mostly > 0.70), with the total score showing highest stability (ICC = 0.88). Kappa values indicated moderate to substantial agreement across timepoints.
conclusionThe CPHQ2.0 is a valid and reliable tool for measuring broad, context-sensitive health, grounded in the Capability Approach and Positive Health concept. Developed with input from diverse stakeholders, it is suitable for use in research, policy, and to target and evaluate health promoting interventions. Future research should assess its sensitivity to detect changes over time following interventions, and explore applicability across settings and populations.
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.