Psychometric validation of the questionnaire MSQOL-54 in Slovakia – a pilot study

Česká verze

Authors: Ľ. Majerníková; A. Hudáková; A. Obročníková
Authors place of work: Fakulta zdravotníckych odborov, Prešovská univerzita v Prešove
Published in the journal: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2023; 86(4): 262-270
Category: Původní práce
doi: https://doi.org/10.48095/cccsnn2023262

Summary

Aim: Multiple sclerosis has a major impact on the quality of life of the patient. The aim of the study was to validate the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Questionnaire – 54 (MSQOL-54) linguistically and culturally. The instrument includes a wide range domain of quality of life which is related with health. Methodology: Principal component analysis with orthogonal Varimax rotation was used to assess the construct validity. Preliminary analysis was performed using the Kaiser Meyer-Olkin statistic and Bartlett‘s test of sphericity. For the analysis of the factor structure of the instrument we used the procedures of confirmatory factor analysis. Results: In the pilot study there were 104 respondents. The reliability of the whole questionnaire confirmed the value of Cronbach a = 0.979. The most significant correlations were found between the Expanded Disability Status Scale scores: pain and physical health (P < 0.001). Statistically significant inverse correlations were found between duration of disease and MSQoL-54 subscales at the P < 0.001 level in the areas: task limitation due to emotional problems, energy, cognitive functions, sexual activity, change in health status, and satisfaction with sexual activity. Conclusion: The questionnaire shows possibilities of use in a larger sample of respondents without limitation to the diagnosed type of multiple sclerosis and with extended items in the area of sociodemographic screening, level of self-care and mental health.

Keywords:

Quality of life – Reliability – validity – sclerosis multiplex – questionnaire MSQOL-54

Zdroje

1. Havrdová E. Roztroušená skleróza. Praha: Mladá fronta 2013.

2. World Health Organization. Basic documents. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //apps.who.int/gb/bd/pdf_files/BD_49th-en.pdf.

3. Sanaeinasab H, Saffari M, Hashempour M et al. Effect of a transactional model education program on coping effectiveness in women with multiple sclerosis. Brain Behav 2017; 7 (10): e00810. doi: 10.1002/brb3.810.

4. Majerníková L, Magurová D. Teoretické východiská edukácie v zdravotníckej praxi. Lipovce pri Prešove: A-print 2016.

5. Gurková E, Šaňák D, Šáteková L et al. Validace dotazníku pro hodnocení dopadu cévní mozkové příhody – česká verze Stroke Impact Scale 3.0. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2022; 85 (4): 287–295. doi: 10.48095/cccsnn2022 287.

6. Klímová E. Manažment liečby pacientky s vysoko aktívnou relapsujúcou/remitujúcou sclerosis multiplex a graviditou – popis vlastného prípadu a diskusia. Neurológia 2015; 10 (2): 5–9.

7. Obročníková A, Mrosková S. Špecifický výskumný nástroj hodnotenia kvality života MSQOL-54. Quo vadis zdravotníctvo – zborník príspevkov medzinárodnej vedeckej konferencie. Prešovská univerzita v Prešove 2023: 214–225.

8. Magurová D, Hudáková A, Majerníková L et al. Kvalita života pacientov s neurologickými ochoreniami prostredníctvom výskumného šetrenia v podmienkach klinickej praxe. Prešov: Fakulta zdravotníckych odborov 2021.

9. Isaksson AK, Ahlstrom G, Gunnarsson AG. Quality of life and impairment in patients with multiple sclerosis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2005; 76 (1): 64–69. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2003.029660.

10. Bisija L, Pausenberger E, Haines TP et al. Adult measures of general health and health-realted quality of life. Arthritis Care Res 2011; 63 (Suppl 11): 383–412. doi: 10.1002/acr.20541.

11. Majerníkova Ľ. Hodnotenie úrovne kvality života pacientov so sclerosis multiplex novou validizovanou metódou v slovenskej populácii. Prešov: Fakulta zdravotníckych odborov 2022.

12. Obročníková A. Potreby človeka z pohľadu ošetrovateľstva. Prešov: Fakulta zdravotníckych odborov 2021.

13. Thomson AJ, Banwell BL, Barkhof F et al. Diagnosis of multiple sclerosis: 2017 revisions of the McDonald criteria. Lancet Neurol 2018; 17 (2): 162–173. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422 (17) 30470-2.

14. Vickrey BG, Hays RD, Harooni R et al. A health-related quality of life measure for multiple sclerosis. Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (3): 187–206. doi: 10.1007/BF02260859.

15. Hadgkiss EJ, Jelinek GA, Weiland TJ et al. Health-related quality of life outcomes at 1 and 5 years after a residential retreat promoting lifestyle modification for people with multiple sclerosis. Neurol Sci 2013; 34 (2): 187–195. doi: 10.1007/s10072-012-0982-4.

16. Drulovic J, Bursac LO, Milojkovic D et al. MSQoL-54 predicts change in fatigue after inpatient rehabilitation for people with multiple sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35 (5): 362–366. doi: 10.3109/09638288.2012.704 122.

17. Solari A, Filippini G, Mendozzi L et al. Validation of Italian multiple sclerosis quality of life 54 questionnaire. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1999; 67 (2): 158–162. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.67.2.158.

18. Idiman E, Uzunel F, Ozakbas S et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and validation of multiple sclerosis quality of life questionnaire (MSQOL-54) in a Turkish multiple sclerosis sample. J Neurol Sci 2006; 240 (1–2): 77–80. doi: 10.1016/j.jns.2005.09.009.

19. Acquadro C, Lafortune L, Mear I. Quality of life in multiple sclerosis: ranslation in French Canadian of the MSQoL-54. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003; 1: 70. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-70.

20. Stern B, Fabjan TH, Rener-Sitar K et al. Validation of the Slovenian version of multiple sclerosis quality of life (MSQOL-54) instrument. Zdr Varst 2017; 56 (4): 260–267. doi: 10.1515/sjph-2017-0035.

21. Estiasari E, Fajrina Y, Lastri DN et al. Validity and reli- ability of brief international cognitive assessment for multiple sclerosis (BICAMS) in Indonesia and the correlation with quality of life. Neurol Res Int 2019; 2019: 4290352. doi: 10.1155/2019/4290352.

22. Catic T, Culig J, Suljic E et al. Validation of the disease-specific questionnaire MSQoL-54 in Bosnia and Herzegovina multiple sclerosis patients sample. Med Arch 2017; 71 (2): 103–106. doi: 10.5455/medarh.2017.71.103-106.

23. Rosato V, Temple NJ, La Vecchia C et al. Mediterranean diet and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Eur J Nutr 2019; 58 (1): 173–191. doi: 10.1007/s00394-017-1582-0.

24. Rosseel Y. lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Software 2011; 48 (2): 1–36. doi: 10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

25. Terrence DJ. Useful tools for structural equation modeling. [online]. Dostupné z: https: //cran.r-project.org/web/packages/semTools/semTools.pdf.

26. Li CH. Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behav Res Methods 2016; 48 (3): 936–949. doi: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7.

27. Michalko D. Factor structure of Slovak adaptation of Attentional Control Scale. Studia Psychol 2018; 1 (60): 57–70. doi: 10.21909/sp.2018.01.752.

28. Sollár T. Empirická verifikácia štrukturálnych modelov psychodiagnostických nástrojov. Bratislava: SAP 2014.