Skip to main content
Log in

Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In the age of increased international collaboration in medical research, the necessity of having at hand cross-culturally applicable instruments for the assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQL) in clinical trials has been voiced. Several important theoretical bases leading to cultural bias in HRQL measurement include differences in definitions of HRQL across national and cultural contexts, levels of observation relied upon to indicate HRQL states, and the significance or weight placed upon the various HRQL states or dimensions measured. Despite a growing literature on the development and evaluation of existing HRQL measures in other cultures, comprehensive sets of procedures or requirements for the international part of development and evaluation are lacking. This paper reviews major approaches to developing international HRQL measures, and discusses various methods and criteria that have been recommended for evaluating measurement equivalence in comparisons of research across national and cultural contexts. A summary of recent trends and advances in international HRQL assessment is presented.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hunt SM. Cross-cultural comparability of quality of life measures. Drug Information Journal 1993; 27: 395–400.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Patrick DL, Erikson P. Health Status and Health Policy: Allocating Resources to Health Care. Oxford University Press: New York, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Spilker B, Molinek FR, Johnston KA, et al. Quality of life bibliography and indexes. Med Care 1990; 28.

  4. Walker SR, Rosser RH. Quality of Life Assessment. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1992.

  5. Stewart AL, Ware JE, eds. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes Study Approach. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Sartorius N. Cross-cultural and international collaboration in mental health research and action. Acta Scand Psychoa 1988; 78: 71–74.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Calman. Definitions and dimensions of quality of life. In: Aaronson N, Bekman JS, eds. The Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. New York: Raven Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kleinman A, Eisenberg L, Good B. Culture, illness and care: clinical lessons from anthropologic and cross-cultural research. Ann Int Med 1978; 88: 251–258.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bullinger M, Hasford J. Evaluating quality of life measures in German clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials 1991; 12: 915–1055.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, Elinson J, eds. Assessment of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Cardiovascular Therapies. Le Jacq Press, 1984.

  11. Dressler WW, Vieteri FE, Chavez A. Comparative research in social epidemiology: measurement issues. Ethnicity Dis 1991; 1: 379–393.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brislin RW, Lonner W, Thorndike RM. Cross Cultural Research Methods. New York: John Wiley and Sons: 1973: 51.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Sartorius N. A WHO method for the assessment of health-related quality of life (WHOQOL). In: Walker SR, Rosser RM, eds. Quality of Life Assessment: Key issues in the 1990s. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1993: 201–207.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Hui C, Triandis HC. Measurement in cross-cultural psychology: a review and comparison of strategies. Cross Cultural Psychology 1985; 16: 131–15.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Anderson RT, Aaronson NK, Wilkin D. Critical review of the international assessments of health-related quality of life. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 369–395.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality Life Res 1992; 1: 349–351.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Bullinger, et al. International translations of the SF-36 Health Survey: Results of the IQOLA approach. Unpublished manuscript.

  18. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1960/1980.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G. The functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Onc 1993; 11: 572–579.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC core quality-of-life questinnnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osaba D, ed. Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1991; 185–203.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol.

  23. Del Greco L, Walop W, Eastridge L. Questionnaire Development 3. Translation. Can Med Assoc J 1987; 136: 817–818.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory, 2nd edn. New York: McGraw Hill, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ware JE. Standards for validating health measures: definition and content. J Chron Dis 1987; 40: 473–480.

    Google Scholar 

  26. DeVellis RF. Scale Development: Theory and Application. Applied Social Research Methods Series, Vol 26. London, New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL. Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12: 142S-158S.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 441–449.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, et al. Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 1989; 42: 403–408.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Guyatt G, Walter S, Norman G. Measuring change over time: assessing the usefulness of evaluative instruments. J Chron Dis 40: 171–178.

  31. Bullinger M. Quality of life-definition, conceptualization and implications. The methodologist perspective. Theoretical Surgery 1991; 6: 123–137.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Preparation of this document was supported by the Burroughs Wellcome Co., Research Triangle Park, NC, and by the Bowman Gray School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bullinger, M., Anderson, R., Cella, D. et al. Developing and evaluating cross-cultural instruments from minimum requirements to optimal models. Qual Life Res 2, 451–459 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422219

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00422219

Key words

Navigation