Development of a Direct Weighting Procedure for Quality of Life Domains

The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life allows individuals to nominate the domains they consider most important to their quality of life and to use their own value system when describing the functional status and relative importance of those domains. The weights for domain impo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Quality of life research 1997-05, Vol.6 (4), p.301-309
Main Authors: BROWNE, J.P, O'BOYLE, C.A, MCGEE, H.M, MCDONALD, N.J, JOYCE, C.R.B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Activities of Daily Living
Adult
Applied statistics
Biological and medical sciences
Computer software
Decision Making
Female
Frequency distribution
Humans
Judgment
Male
Medical sciences
Mental health
Middle Aged
Miscellaneous
Personality Inventory
Psychometrics - methods
Public health. Hygiene
Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
Quality of Life
Regression Analysis
Reproducibility of Results
Statistical variance
Surgeons
Term weighting
Wellbeing
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:The Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life allows individuals to nominate the domains they consider most important to their quality of life and to use their own value system when describing the functional status and relative importance of those domains. The weights for domain importance are derived through a procedure called judgement analysis. As judgement analysis is impractical for individuals with cognitive impairment and in many clinical situations, a shorter, direct weighting procedure has been developed. To test the new procedure, 40 healthy individuals completed both direct and judgement analysis weightings, at t1and 7-10 days later (t2). After a further 7-10 days (t3), they were asked to identify the weight profiles they had previously produced using each method. The weights produced by the two methods differed on average by 7.8 points at t1and 7.2 points at t2. The direct weights changed on average by 4.5 points from t1to t2, while the judgement analysis weights changed by 8.4 points. At t3, 55% of individuals were able to identify the direct weights they had previously produced. The new procedure demonstrates stability and validity but is not interchangeable with judgement analysis. The most appropriate ways of using and interpreting both procedures are discussed.
ISSN:0962-9343
1573-2649
DOI:10.1023/a:1018423124390