Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 6/2016

11-12-2015

Structural and construct validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale

Authors: Ipek Ensari, Robert W. Motl, Edward McAuley

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 6/2016

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

The Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life (LMSQOL) scale was designed as an 8-item, unidimensional disease-targeted measure of quality of life (QOL). This study (1) tested the unidimensionality of the LMSQOL using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and (2) examined the construct validity of scores based on a nomological network.

Methods

The sample (N = 292) included persons with multiple sclerosis (MS) who were recruited from the Midwest region of the USA. Participants completed questionnaires that were delivered and returned using US Postal Service. We tested the fit of a single-factor model for the LMSQOL using CFA with the diagonally weighted least squares estimator in R. We examined the construct validity of the LMSQOL scores using Spearman rank-order correlations (r s) in SPSS.

Results

The single-factor model had a reasonable fit for the 8-item LMSQOL [χ 2 (20) = 83.19, p < .001, CFI = .97, SRMR = .07], but provided an excellent fit for a 7-item version of the LMSQOL [χ 2 (14) = 23.63, p > .05, CFI = .99, SRMR = .05]. LMSQOL scores demonstrated strong correlations with measures of psychological well-being (|r s| = .53–.74) and weak-to-moderate correlations with measures of physical functioning and disability (|r s| = .23–.57).

Conclusion

The unidimensional model provides a good fit for the LMSQOL, and its scores provide a valid measure of QOL in MS.
previous article Validation of the EORTC QLQ-INFO 25 questionnaire in Lebanese cancer patients: Is ignorance a Bliss?

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., & Keller, S. D. (1996). A 12-item short-form health survey: Construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity. Medical Care, 34(3), 220–233.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Bandari, D. S., Vollmer, T. L., Khatri, B. O., & Tyry, T. (2010). Assessing quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. International Journal of MS Care, 12(1), 34–41.CrossRef
5.
Baumstarck, K., Boyer, L., Boucekine, M., Michel, P., Pelletier, J., & Auquier, P. (2013). Measuring the quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis in clinical practice: A necessary challenge. Multiple Sclerosis International, 524894, 8. doi:10.​1155/​2013/​524894.
6.
Pavot, W., & Diener, E. (1993). Review of the satisfaction with life scale. Psychological Assessment, 5(2), 164–172.CrossRef
7.
Hobart, J., Lamping, D., Fitzpatrick, R., Riazi, A., & Thompson, A. (2001). The multiple sclerosis impact scale (MSIS-29) a new patient-based outcome measure. Brain, 124(5), 962–973.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Ford, H. L., Gerry, E., Tennant, A., Whalley, D., Haigh, R., & Johnson, M. H. (2001). Developing a disease-specific quality of life measure for people with multiple sclerosis. Clinical Rehabilitation, 15(3), 247–258.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Nicholl, L., Hobart, J. C., Cramp, A. F., & Lowe-Strong, A. S. (2005). Measuring quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Not as simple as it sounds. Multiple Sclerosis, 11(6), 708–712.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
11.
Landy, F. J. (1986). Stamp collecting versus science: Validation as hypothesis testing. American Psychologist, 41(11), 1183–1192.CrossRef
12.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bulletin, 52(4), 281–302.CrossRef
13.
Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., Snook, E. M., & Gliottoni, R. C. (2009). Physical activity and quality of life in multiple sclerosis: Intermediary roles of disability, fatigue, mood, pain, self-efficacy, and social support. Psychology Health and Medicine, 14, 111–124.CrossRef
14.
Krupp, L. B., LaRocca, N. G., Muir-Nash, J., & Steinberg, A. D. (1989). The fatigue severity scale: Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Archives of Neurology, 46(10), 1121–1123.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Zigmond, A. S., & Snaith, R. P. (1983). The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67(6), 361–370.CrossRefPubMed
16.
17.
Hadjimichael, O., Kerns, R. D., Rizzo, M. A., Cutter, G., & Vollmer, T. (2007). Persistent pain and uncomfortable sensations in persons with multiple sclerosis. Pain, 127, 35–41.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Motl, R. W., McAuley, E., & Suh, Y. (2010). Validity, invariance, and responsiveness of a self-report measures of functional limitations and disability in multiple sclerosis. Disability and Rehabilitation, 32, 1260–1271.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Schwartz, C. E., Coulthard-Morris, L., Zeng, Q., & Retzlaff, P. (1996). Measuring self-efficacy in people with multiple scleoris: A validation study. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 77(4), 394–398.CrossRefPubMed
20.
McAuley, E. (1993). Self-efficacy and the maintenance of exercise participation in older adults. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 16, 103–113.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Godin, G., & Shephard, R. J. (1985). A simple method to assess exercise behavior in the community. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 10, 141–146.
22.
Yves, R. (2012). Lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
23.
24.
Mîndrilă, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation procedures: A comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1(1), 60–66.
25.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
26.
Van Sonderen, E., Sanderman, R., & Coyne, J. C. (2013). Ineffectiveness of reverse wording of questionnaire items: Let’s learn from cows in the rain. PLoS One, 8(7), e68967.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
Hayduk, L. (2014). Seeing perfectly fitting factor models that are causally misspecified: Understanding that close-fitting models can be worse. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(6), 905–926.CrossRef
28.
Hayduk, L. A. (2014). Shame for disrespecting evidence: The personal consequences of insufficient respect for structural equation model testing. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 14(1), 1–17.CrossRef
29.
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 139–150.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Costa, D. S. (2015). Reflective, causal, and composite indicators of quality of life: A conceptual or an empirical distinction? Quality of Life Research, 24(9), 2057–2065.CrossRefPubMed
31.
Bollen, K. A., & Bauldry, S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16(3), 265–284.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Structural and construct validity of the Leeds Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life scale
Authors
Ipek Ensari
Robert W. Motl
Edward McAuley
Publication date
11-12-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1202-5

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Quality of Life Research 6/2016 Go to the issue

Editorial

Introduction to special section on response shift at the item level

OriginalPaper

Validity, responsiveness, and minimal clinically important difference of EQ-5D-5L in stroke patients undergoing rehabilitation

Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

An item-level response shift study on the change of health state with the rating of asthma-specific quality of life: a report from the PROMIS® Pediatric Asthma Study

Special Section: Response Shift Effects at Item Level (by invitation only)

Using a retrospective pretest instead of a conventional pretest is replacing biases: a qualitative study of cognitive processes underlying responses to thentest items

OriginalPaper

Distinct trajectories of disease-specific health status in heart failure patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality of life after first-line anti-cancer treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in clinical practice