The reliability and validity of the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data set in people with spinal cord injuries from a middle-income country: a psychometric study of the Thai version

Abstract

Study Design

A cross-sectional study.

Objectives

To examine psychometric properties, including internal consistency, construct validity, and test–retest reliability, of the Thai version of the International Spinal Cord Injury (ISCI) Quality of Life Basic Data Set (QoL-BDS).

Setting

Outpatient rehabilitation clinic, urodynamic clinic, and rehabilitation ward at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital.

Methods

Participants were assigned to complete two assessment tools, the Thai version of QoL-BDS which consisted of three single items on satisfaction with life as a whole, physical health and psychological health, and the Thai version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life instrument (WHOQOL-BREF) completed by face to face interview. After 2 weeks, the participants were evaluated the QoL-BDS again via telephone interviewing to assess test–retest reliability.

Results

One hundred and thirty people with spinal cord injury (SCI) were included in the study. Of all participants, 103 people had a traumatic SCI. The mean (SD) age was 43.0 (13.1) years and the median (IQR) time after SCI was 7.5 (1–14) years. The Thai version of QoL-BDS had good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89), fair to good construct validity (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient of 0.43–0.57, p < 0.01) and good to excellent test–retest reliability (Intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.73–0.86).

Conclusions

The Thai version of QoL-BDS had acceptable psychometric properties. As it is concise, QoL-BDS should be encouraged in healthcare providers to investigate QoL in people with SCI, especially in middle-income countries.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Data archiving

The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Cieza A, Kirchberger I, Biering-Sorensen F, Baumberger M, Charlifue S, Post MW, et al. ICF Core Sets for individuals with spinal cord injury in the long-term context. Spinal Cord. 2010;48:305–12.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Migliorini CE, New PW, Tonge BJ. Quality of life in adults with spinal cord injury living in the community. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:365–70.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Tulsky DS, Kisala PA, Victorson D, Tate DG, Heinemann AW, Charlifue S, et al. Overview of the Spinal Cord Injury-Quality of Life (SCI-QOL) measurement system. J Spinal Cord Med. 2015;38:257–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Hill MR, Noonan VK, Sakakibara BM, Miller WC. SCIRE Research team. Quality of life instruments and definitions in individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. Spinal Cord. 2010;48:438–50.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Whitehurst DG, Noonan VK, Dvorak MF, Bryan S. A review of preference-based health-related quality of life questionnaires in spinal cord injury research. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:646–54.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Hwang HF, Liang WM, Chiu YN, Lin MR. Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling older people in Taiwan. Age Ageing. 2003;32:593–600.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Charlifue S, Post MW, Biering-Sorensen F, Catz A, Dijkers M, Geyh S, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data Set. Spinal Cord. 2012;50:672–5.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Biering-Sorensen F, Charlifue S, DeVivo M, Noonan V, Post M, Stripling T, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Data Sets. Spinal Cord. 2006;44:530–4.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Post MW, Adriaansen JJ, Charlifue S, Biering-Sorensen F, van Asbeck FW. Good validity of the international spinal cord injury quality of life basic data set. Spinal Cord. 2016;54:314–8.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    New PW, Tate DG, Forchheimer MB, D’Andrea Greve JM, Parashar D, Post MWM. Preliminary psychometric analyses of the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data Set. Spinal Cord. 2019;57:789–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Post MWM, Forchheimer MB, Charlifue S, D’Andrea Greve JM, New PW, Tate DG. Reproducibility of the international spinal cord injury quality of life basic data set: an international psychometric study. Spinal Cord. 2019;57:992–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Post MW, Nooijen CF, Postma K, Dekkers J, Penninx F, van den Berg-Emons RJ, et al. People with spinal cord injury in the Netherlands. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(2 Suppl 1):S93–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Richards C, MacKenzie N, Roberts S, Escorpizo R. People with spinal cord injury in the United States. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(2 Suppl 1):S124–S126.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kovindha A. People with spinal cord injury in Thailand. Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2017;96(2 Suppl 1):S120–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Biering-Sorensen F, Alexander MS, Burns S, Charlifue S, DeVivo M, Dietz V, et al. Recommendations for translation and reliability testing of International Spinal Cord Injury Data Sets. Spinal Cord. 2011;49:357–60.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Bonett DG, Wright TA. Sample size requirements for estimating pearson, kendall and spearman correlations. Psychometrika. 2000;65:23–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Biering-Sorensen F, DeVivo MJ, Charlifue S, Chen Y, New PW, Noonan V, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set (version 2.0)-including standardization of reporting. Spinal Cord. 2017;55:759–64.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    DeVivo M, Biering-Sorensen F, Charlifue S, Noonan V, Post M, Stripling T, et al. International Spinal Cord Injury Core Data Set. Spinal Cord. 2006;44:535–40.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Phungrassami T, Katikarn R, Watanaarepornchai S, Sangtawan D. Quality of life assessment in radiotherapy patients by WHOQOL-BREF-THAI: a feasibility study. J Med Assoc Thai. 2004;87:1459–65.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Sakthong P, Schommer JC, Gross CR, Sakulbumrungsil R, Prasithsirikul W. Psychometric properties of WHOQOL-BREF-THAI in patients with HIV/AIDS. J Med Assoc Thai. 2007;90:2449–60.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wongsa S, Tongprasert S, Kovindha A. Quality of life of primary caregivers of disabled people with spinal cord injury by using Short Form-36 Questionnaire. J Thai Rehabil Med. 2011;21:28–33.

    Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lucke KT, Cocia H, Lucke JF. Quality of life in spinal cord injured individuals and their caregivers during the initial 6 months following rehabilitation. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:97–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Elfstrom ML, Kreuter M, Ryden A, Persson LO, Sullivan M. Effects of coping on psychological outcome when controlling for background variables: a study of traumatically spinal cord lesioned persons. Spinal Cord. 2002;40:408–15.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Manns PJ, Chad KE. Determining the relation between quality of life, handicap, fitness, and physical activity for persons with spinal cord injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1999;80:1566–71.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Ms Rodchana Janpueak, a research administrator of Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, for providing statistical advices, as well as Associate Professor Jakkrit Klaphajone, an associate professor of rehabilitation medicine and an English specialist of Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, for English proofreading and correction.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

SP designed the research questions, collected and analyzed the data, drafted the manuscript and wrote the final version of the manuscript. LS collected and analyzed the data and drafted the manuscript. TW designed the research questions and commented on the final version of the manuscript. ST designed the research question, collected and analyzed the data and commented on the final version of the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Siam Tongprasert.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The study protocol was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai, Thailand and was in accordance with the current version of the Helsinki Declaration. The study number is REH-2560-04814. The authors certify that all applicable institutional and governmental regulations concerning the ethical use of human volunteers were followed during all course of this study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pattanakuhar, S., Suttinoon, L., Wongpakaran, T. et al. The reliability and validity of the International Spinal Cord Injury Quality of Life Basic Data set in people with spinal cord injuries from a middle-income country: a psychometric study of the Thai version. Spinal Cord (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41393-020-0468-9

Download citation