Primary Image

RehabMeasures Instrument

WHO Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF)

Last Updated

Purpose

The WHOQOL-BREF assesses quality of life (QOL) within the context of an individual's culture, value systems, personal goals, standards and concerns.

Link to Instrument

instrument details

Acronym WHOQOL-BREF

Area of Assessment

Activities of Daily Living
General Health
Life Participation
Mental Health
Quality of Life
Social Relationships

Assessment Type

Patient Reported Outcomes

Administration Mode

Paper & Pencil

Cost

Free

Diagnosis/Conditions

  • Arthritis + Joint Conditions
  • Brain Injury
  • Multiple Sclerosis
  • Parkinson's Disease + Neurologic Rehabilitation
  • Pulmonary Disorders
  • Spinal Cord Injury
  • Stroke Recovery

Key Descriptions

  • A cross-culturally comparable quality of life measure. Developed collaboratively and field-tested across a number of cultural contexts.
  • Assesses quality of life within six different contexts - with QOL defined as “the individuals' perceptions of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns” (WHOQOL group 1995).
  • WHOQOL-BREF is the short version of the WHOQOL 100 and is recommended for use when time is restricted or the burden on the respondent needs to be minimized. This survey has been used in large epidemiological studies and clinical trials.
  • A self-report questionnaire that contains 26 items and addresses 4 QOL domains: physical health (7 items), psychological health (6 items), social relationships (3 items) and environment (8 items). Two other items measure overall QOL and general health.
  • Items are rated on a 5-point Likert scale (low score of 1 to high score of 5) to determine a raw item score. Subsequently, the mean score for each domain is calculated, resulting in a mean score per domain that is between 4 and 20. Finally, this mean domain score is then multiplied by 4 in order to transform the domain score into a scaled score, with a higher score indicating a higher QOL. When transformed by multiplying x4, each domain score is then comparable with the scores used in the original WHOQOL-100.
  • Self-administration is recommended if the respondent has sufficient ability; if not, interviewer assisted or interview-administered forms should be used.
  • Available in 19 languages.

Number of Items

26

Equipment Required

  • Manual recommended as calculated and transformed scores on the posted document refer examiner to the manual for details on correct calculations

Time to Administer

15 minutes

10-15 minutes

Required Training

Reading an Article/Manual

Age Ranges

Adult

18 - 64

years

Elderly adult

65 +

years

Instrument Reviewers

Initially reviewed by Jason Raad and the Rehabilitation Measures Team in 2010; Updated with references from the dementia population by Amy Bussman, SPT and Sarah Falk, SPT in 2011; Updated by Rachel Tappan, PT, NCS and the SCI EDGE task force in 5/2012 and Anna de Joya, PT, DSc, NCS and the TBI EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA; Updated with references from the PD population by Erin Hussey, DPT, MS, NCS and the PD EDGE task force of the Neurology Section of the APTA in 6/2013.

ICF Domain

Activity
Participation
Environment

Measurement Domain

Activities of Daily Living

Professional Association Recommendation

Recommendations for use of the instrument from the Neurology Section of the American Physical Therapy Association’s Multiple Sclerosis Taskforce (MSEDGE), Parkinson’s Taskforce (PD EDGE), Spinal Cord Injury Taskforce (PD EDGE), Stroke Taskforce (StrokEDGE), Traumatic Brain Injury Taskforce (TBI EDGE), and Vestibular Taskforce (Vestibular EDGE) are listed below. These recommendations were developed by a panel of research and clinical experts using a modified Delphi process.

For detailed information about how recommendations were made, please visit:  http://www.neuropt.org/go/healthcare-professionals/neurology-section-outcome-measures-recommendations

Abbreviations:

 

HR

Highly Recommend

R

Recommend

LS / UR

Reasonable to use, but limited study in target group  / Unable to Recommend

NR

Not Recommended

Recommendations for use based on acuity level of the patient:

 

Acute

(CVA < 2 months post)

(SCI < 1 month post) 

(Vestibular < 6 weeks post)

Subacute

(CVA 2 to 6 months)

(SCI 3 to 6 months)

Chronic

(> 6 months)

SCI EDGE

LS

LS

HR

Recommendations Based on Parkinson Disease Hoehn and Yahr stage: 

 

I

II

III

IV

V

PD EDGE

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

LS/UR

Recommendations based on level of care in which the assessment is taken:

 

Acute Care

Inpatient Rehabilitation

Skilled Nursing Facility

Outpatient

Rehabilitation

Home Health

TBI EDGE

NR

NR

NR

LS

LS

Recommendations based on SCI AIS Classification: 

 

AIS A/B

AIS C/D

SCI EDGE

HR

HR

Recommendations for use based on ambulatory status after brain injury:

 

Completely Independent

Mildly dependant

Moderately Dependant

Severely Dependant

TBI EDGE

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Recommendations for entry-level physical therapy education and use in research:

 

Students should learn to administer this tool? (Y/N)

Students should be exposed to tool? (Y/N)

Appropriate for use in intervention research studies? (Y/N)

Is additional research warranted for this tool (Y/N)

PD EDGE

No

No

Yes

Not reported

SCI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

TBI EDGE

No

Yes

Yes

Not reported

Considerations

Interviewer-administration of the WHOQOL-BREF for older people is recommended.

Movement Disorders task force identified the WHOQOL-BREF as “suggested” measure but not as a “recommended” measure since it has reasonable psychometrics in other populations but limited evidence supporting application to those with Parkinson Disease (Martinez-Martin et al, 2011).

Do you see an error or have a suggestion for this instrument summary? Please e-mail us!

Stroke

back to Populations

Normative Data

Acute Stroke: (Zalihic et al, 2010; n = 202; mean age = 72 (13) years; time since stroke not specified)

WHOQOL-BREF Norms by Gender:

 

 

 

Female

Male

 

Mean (SD)

Mean (SD)

Age: Mean (IR*)

75 (11.25)

71 (13.75)

Physical

40.3 (22.2)

47.0 (22.3)

Psychological

46.7 (20.9)

53.3 (18.8)

Social Relationships

63.3 (19.8)

60.7 (19.6)

Environment

52.6 (13.9)

55.8 (18.7)

 

 

*Interquartile  Range

 

 

 

 

Chronic Stroke: (Edwards & O’Connell, 2003; n = 74; mean age = 58.35 (14.80); mean time since stroke onset = 56.8 months)

Normative Data:

 

 

 

WHOQOL-BREF

 

 

Domain

Mean (SD)

Range

Physical

60.5 (21.2)

92.86

Psychological

59.8 (21.5)

100.00

Social Relationships

62.1 (25.4)

100.00

Environment

67.9 (19.1)

71.88

Q1: Quality of Life

3.7 (0.9)

4.00

Q2: Health

3.2 (1.2)

4.00

Content Validity

  • An exploration of the quality of life construct was conducted in 15 culturally diverse field centers to establish areas/facets that participating centers considered relevant to the assessment of quality of life (Harper, 1996)
  • WHOQOL-Bref is the abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100, which can examine the quality of life of individuals after undergoing interventions. This test has been shown to be successful across many cultures (Chapin et al, 2010)

Face Validity

  • Test items contributed from 15 culturally diverse centers were pooled together (Harper, 1996)

  • After clustering semantically equivalent questions, 236 items covering 29 facets were included in a final assessment

  • Pilot work involved administration of this standardized assessment to at least 300 respondents within each of the 15 centers

Brain Injury

back to Populations

Normative Data

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Chiu et al, 2006; n = 199; mean age = 45.4 (20.3); time since injury = 1.0 (0.7) years; Glasgow Coma Scale scores at admission: score of 3-8 = 7.5%, score of 9-13 = 22.6%, score of 14-15 = 69.9%; Taiwanese sample)

Score Distributions

 

 

Domain

Mean

SD

Quality of Life

13.8

2.8

Physical Capacity

15.1

2.7

Psychological Well-Being

13.9

2.5

Social Relationships

14.2

2.5

Environment

13.7

2.1

Test/Retest Reliability

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Chiu et al, 2006)

Test Retest Reliability

 

 

Domain

ICC

Strength

Quality of Life

0.87

Excellent

Physical Capacity

0.86

Excellent

Psychological Well-Being

0.95

Excellent

Social Relationships

0.74

Adequate

Environment

0.90

Excellent

Internal Consistency

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Chiu et al, 2006)

Internal Consistency

 

 

Domain

Cronbach’s alpha

Strength

Quality of Life

0.75

Adequate

Physical Capacity

0.88

Excellent

Psychological Well-Being

0.89

Excellent

Social Relationships

0.79

Adequate

Environment

0.82

Excellent

Construct Validity

Traumatic Brain Injury: 

(Chiu et al, 2006)

  • Spearman’s correlation coefficients were 0.53 and 0.31 between physical capacity and the Glasgow Outcome Scale and the Barthel Index, respectively, -0.64 between psychological well-being and the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), 0.52 between psychological well-being and the Social Support, and 0.37 between social relationships and the Social Support Survey.

Content Validity

  • An exploration of the quality of life construct was conducted in 15 culturally diverse field centers to establish areas/facets that participating centers considered relevant to the assessment of quality of life (Harper, 1996)
  • WHOQOL-Bref is the abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100, which can examine the quality of life of individuals after undergoing interventions. This test has been shown to be successful across many cultures (Chapin et al, 2010)

 

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Chiu et al, 2006)

  • Unadjusted scores of the overall quality of life and general health facet and each domain of the WHOQOL-BREF did not significantly differ in severity levels as indicated by the Glasgow Coma Scale, Abbreviated Injury Scale to the Head (AIS-H), and post-traumatic amnesia. 
  • After adjustment for confounds, although the mean scores of the WHOQOL-BREF domains with regard to each indicator changed to some extent, the relationships between the three severity indicators and the four domains and the overall quality of life and general health facet of the WHOQOL-BREF remained similar.

Face Validity

  • Test items contributed from 15 culturally diverse centers were pooled together (Harper, 1996)

  • After clustering semantically equivalent questions, 236 items covering 29 facets were included in a final assessment

  • Pilot work involved administration of this standardized assessment to at least 300 respondents within each of the 15 centers

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Traumatic Brain Injury: (Chiu et al, 2006)

Floor/Ceiling Effect

 

 

Domain

Min (%)

Max (%)

Quality of Life

0.5

2.0

Physical Capacity

0.0

2.5

Psychological Well-Being

0.0

0.0

Social Relationships

0.5

3.0

Environment

0.0

0.0

Responsiveness

Traumatic Brain Injury: 

(Lin et al, 2010)

  • Study stated that WHO-QOL Bref had good responsiveness

 

Traumatic Brain Injury: 

(Chiu et al, 2006) 

Responsiveness of the WHOQOL-BREF with respect to employment status

 

 

 

Domain/facet

Employed Score change (SD)

Unemployed Score change (SD)

Effect Size

QOL

1.6 (2.87)

0.12 (3.00)

0.49

Physical Capacity

1.03 (2.61)

0.38 (2.98)

0.22

Psychological Well-Being

0.27 (2.27)

-0.93 (2.71)

0.44

Social Relationships

0.07 (2.78)

-0.30 (2.64)

0.14

Environment

1.00 (2.48)

-0.55 (2.35)

0.66

Alzheimer's Disease and Progressive Dementia

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011; = 104; mean age = 78.6 (7.2) years; time since onset of dementia not specified)

Test-retest Reliability

 

Domain

ICC, n=27 (retest within two weeks)

Physical

0.70*

Psychological

0.51*

Social Relationship

0.59*

Environment

0.61*

*P<0.1, ICC indicates intraclass correlation

 

Internal Consistency

Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011)

  • Excellent internal consistency for entire scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88)

Internal Consistency by Domain:

 

Domain

Cronbach’s Alpha

Physical

0.78

Psychological

0.79

Social Relationship

0.54

Environment

0.70

Construct Validity

Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011)

Discriminant Validity for all Domains:

 

 

 

 

 

Physical r

Psychological r

Social r

Environmental r

Association with r:

 

 

 

 

Overall QOL

0.336

0.560

0.232

0.528

DEMQOL-28 total

0.381

0.490

0.161

0.353

Geriatric Depression Scale

-0.529

-0.640

-0.236

-0.445

Barthel Index

0.462

0.214

0.292

0.184

MMSE

-0.011

0.049

0.258

0.298

No chronic health conditions

-0.425

-0.247

-0.144

0.002

Content Validity

  • An exploration of the quality of life construct was conducted in 15 culturally diverse field centers to establish areas/facets that participating centers considered relevant to the assessment of quality of life (Harper, 1996)
  • WHOQOL-Bref is the abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100, which can examine the quality of life of individuals after undergoing interventions. This test has been shown to be successful across many cultures (Chapin et al, 2010)

Face Validity

  • Test items contributed from 15 culturally diverse centers were pooled together (Harper, 1996)

  • After clustering semantically equivalent questions, 236 items covering 29 facets were included in a final assessment

  • Pilot work involved administration of this standardized assessment to at least 300 respondents within each of the 15 centers

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Dementia: (Lucas-Carrasco et al, 2011; n = 104; mean age = 78.6 (7.2) years; time since onset of dementia not specified)

Floor and Ceiling Effects by Domain

 

 

Domain

% of Floor

% of Ceiling

Physical

0

0

Psychological

0

0

Social Relationships

0

2.9

Spinal Injuries

back to Populations

Test/Retest Reliability

Chronic SCI: (Lin et al, 2007; n = 187; mean age = 42.9; mean time since injury = 7.4 years; 25.7% incomplete tetraplegia, 15.0% complete tetraplegia, 39.0% incomplete paraplegia, 20.3% complete paraplegia; Taiwanese sample)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability:

 

 

 

 

Domain

Strength

Inter-observer (ICC)

Strength

Intra-observer (ICC)

Overall QoL / General Health

Adequate

0.63

Excellent

0.84

Physical Capacity

Excellent

0.88

Excellent

0.93

Psychological Well-being

Excellent

0.95

Excellent

0.98

Social Relationships

Adequate

0.56

Excellent

0.84

Environment

Excellent

0.80

Excellent

0.89

Internal Consistency

Chronic SCI: (Lin et al, 2007; n = 187; mean age = 42.9; mean time since injury = 7.4 years; Taiwanese sample)

WHOQOL-BREF Alpha by Domain:

 

 

Scale

Strength

Alpha

Overall Quality of Life and General Health

Adequate

0.79

Physical Capacity

Excellent

0.87

Psychological Well-Being

Excellent

0.83

Social Relationships

Adequate

0.75

Environment

Excellent

0.86

SCI: (Jang et al, 2004; n = 111, mean age = 40 (13) years, mean time since SCI = 6 (6) years, complete tetraplegia = 23, incomplete tetraplegia = 28, complete paraplegia = 43, incomplete paraplegia = 17)

Internal Consistency for each domain:

  • Physical Health: Adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75)
  • Psychological Health: Adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.74)
  • Social Relationships: Poor (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.54)
  • Environment: Adequate (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.78)

 

Construct Validity

SCI: (Jang et al, 2004; SCI, n = 111, mean age = 40 (13) years; mean time since injury 6 (6) years; non-SCI, n = 169, mean age = 37 (12) years)

Discriminant validity of the WHOQOL-BREF assessment by t test:

 

 

 

 

Facet and Domain

Non-SCI (n = 169)

SCI (n = 111)

t

P

Overall QOL facet

13.92 (2.69)

12.14 (3.28)

4.94

< 0.001

General health facet

14.22 (2.72)

10.16 (3.27)

10.85

< 0.001

Physical health

15.44 (1.84)

11.41 (2.84)

13.23

< 0.001

Psychologic health

13.75 (2.12)

11.74 (2.73)

6.91

< 0.001

Social relationships

14.25 (2.21)

12.54 (2.58)

5.92

< 0.001

Environment

12.85 (2.13)

12.18 (2.55)

2.31

0.022

Values are mean (SD)

 

 

 

 

 

Chronic SCI: (Lin et al, 2007)

  • Each domain of the WHOQOL-BREF had Adequate to Excellent correlation with a global rating of health status on a 0-100 scale (r = 0.54-0.73)
  • Overall Quality of Life and General Health domains had Excellent correlation with General Health subscale of the SF-36 (r = 0.65)
  • Physical Capacity domain had Adequate to Excellent correlations with the Physical Functioning subscale (= 0.78), Role Physical subscale (= 0.51), and Bodily Pain subscale (r = 0.68) of the SF-36.
  • Psychological Well-Being domain had Poor to Excellent correlations with the Social Functioning subscale (r = 0.63), Role Emotional subscale (r = 0.37), and Mental Health subscale (r = 0.59) of the SF-36.
  • Social Relationships domain had Adequate correlation with the Social Functioning subscale (r = 0.43) of the SF-36.

 

SCI: (Jang et al, 2004)

  • Statistically significant mean differences were found between the SCI and non-SCI groups in all domains except the environmental domain after controlling for gender, education and employment status.

Content Validity

  • An exploration of the quality of life construct was conducted in 15 culturally diverse field centers to establish areas/facets that participating centers considered relevant to the assessment of quality of life (Harper, 1996)
  • WHOQOL-Bref is the abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100, which can examine the quality of life of individuals after undergoing interventions. This test has been shown to be successful across many cultures (Chapin et al, 2010)

Face Validity

  • Test items contributed from 15 culturally diverse centers were pooled together (Harper, 1996)

  • After clustering semantically equivalent questions, 236 items covering 29 facets were included in a final assessment

  • Pilot work involved administration of this standardized assessment to at least 300 respondents within each of the 15 centers

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Chronic SCI: (Lin et al, 2007)

  • Excellent with 0.0-1.3% of individuals reaching floor and 0.0-0.4% of individuals reaching ceiling effect on each domain

 

SCI: (Jang et al, 2004)

  • Adequate Floor Effect for General Health and Overall QOL domains with 5.4%-9.0% reaching floor.
  • Excellent Floor Effect for all other domains with 0.0% of individuals reaching floor.
  • Excellent Ceiling Effect with 0.0-1.8% of individuals reaching ceiling effect on each domain.

Responsiveness

SCI: (Lin et al, 2007)

Responsiveness Effects with respect to change in employment status:

  • Large Effect for Overall QOL and General Health (1.01)
  • Large effect for Physical Capacity (1.83)
  • Moderate effect for Psychological Well-being (0.78)
  • Large effect for Social Relationships (1.16)
  • Moderate effect for Environment (0.78)

Older Adults and Geriatric Care

back to Populations

Normative Data

Community Dwelling Adults: (Huang et al; 2009; mean age = 70.96 (6.91) years, mean Activity-specific Balance Confidence Scale score = 79.89 (20.59) points; Taiwanese sample)

Normative Data

 

 

Healthy Community dwelling elderly adults:

 

 

WHOQOL subscale

Mean (SD)

Range

Physical health

14.14 (2.62)

6–20

Psychological

12.92 (2.44)

7–20

Social relationships

13.79 (1.90)

10–18

Environment

13.59 (1.92)

9–20

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Hwang et al, 2003; n = 1200; 43% had one, 27% had two, and 30% had > three chronic conditions; mean age = 73.4 (range = 65 to 103) years; Taiwanese sample)

Interrater/Intrarater Reliability:

 

 

 

 

 

Domain

Strength

Inter-observer

Strength

Intra-observer

Physical Capacity

Excellent

0.89

Excellent

0.94

Psychological Well-being

Excellent

0.95

Excellent

0.94

Social Relationships

Excellent

0.81

Excellent

0.77

Environment

Excellent

0.93

Excellent

0.92

Internal Consistency

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Hwang et al, 2003)

  • Excellent for Physical Capacity domain (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80)
  • Excellent for Psychological Well-being (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81)
  • Adequate for Social Relationships (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.73)
  • Excellent for Environment (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80)

Construct Validity

Community Dwelling Adults: (Huang et al, 2009)

Fear of falling measure

WHOQOL Sub-scale:

 

 

 

 

 

Physical

Psychological

Social

Environment

Total

FES

0.58***

0.45***

0.15

0.29**

0.46***

ABC

0.61***

0.48***

0.23**

0.25**

0.48***

GFFM

-0.63***

-0.36***

-0.22**

-0.30**

-0.46***

** p <  .01 Moderate
*** p <  .001 Excellent

 

 

 

 

 

 

Content Validity

  • An exploration of the quality of life construct was conducted in 15 culturally diverse field centers to establish areas/facets that participating centers considered relevant to the assessment of quality of life (Harper, 1996)
  • WHOQOL-Bref is the abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100, which can examine the quality of life of individuals after undergoing interventions. This test has been shown to be successful across many cultures (Chapin et al, 2010)

Face Validity

  • Test items contributed from 15 culturally diverse centers were pooled together (Harper, 1996)

  • After clustering semantically equivalent questions, 236 items covering 29 facets were included in a final assessment

  • Pilot work involved administration of this standardized assessment to at least 300 respondents within each of the 15 centers

Floor/Ceiling Effects

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Hwang et al, 2003)

  • Excellent with 0.0-0.3% of individuals reaching floor and 0.0-0.8% of individuals reaching ceiling effect on each domain.

Responsiveness

Community Dwelling Older Adults: (Hwang et al, 2003) Responsiveness Effects (Based on Guyatt’s method)

  • Large effect for Physical Capacity (ES = -1.42)
  • Large effect for Psychological Well-being (ES = -0.80)
  • Moderate effect for Social Relationships (ES = -0.46)
  • Moderate effect for Environment (ES = -0.71)
  • Moderate effect for Overall Quality of Life and General Health (ES = -0.56)

Parkinson's Disease

back to Populations

Internal Consistency

Parkinson Disease: (Hirayama et al, 2008; = 68 with PD (38 male/30 female; Age 66.6(8.9); Age at onset 58.6(9.9); Duration 8.0(6.2); Education 8.8(5.3) years; HY 1: n = 10, HY 1.5: n = 9, HY 2: n = 17, HY 2.5: n = 13, HY 3: n = 18, HY 4: n = 1). Mild = HY stages 1-1.5; Moderate = HY stages 2-2.5; Advanced = HY stages 3-4.)

  • For whole tool, Excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.91)
    • Physical capacity, Adequate, Cronbach’s alpha = 0.8
    • Psychological well-being, Adequate, Cronbach alpha = 0.76
    • Social relationships, Adequate, Cronbach alpha = 0.74
    • Environmental, Adequate, Cronbach alpha = 0.73

Construct Validity

Parkinson Disease: (Schestatsky et al, 2006; = 21 PD and their caregivers; PD subjects (age 65.76(11.07), 76.2% male, duration of disease 6.78(4.46), Hoehn & Yahr mean stage = 2.55(1.06), mean MMSE 26.52(1.86), amount of antiparkinsonian meds 2.95(1.71), Caregivers, n = 21 (age 50.70(16.26), 90.4% female, 52.1% were wife/husband of subject, 25.9% son or daughter, 12% siblings, and 10% were professional care providers)

  • PD group: significant correlations (p < 0.05). Other interactions were either not significant at 0.05 or represented weak correlation.
    • QOL-BREF Psychological well-being, Adequate negative correlation with Duration of disease (r = -0.55; p = 0.01)
    • QOL-BREF Social interactions, Excellent negative correlation with Hoehn Yahr Stage (r = -0.7; p = 0.001).
    • QOL-BREF physical domain, Adequate positive correlation to number of people living in the home (r = 0.5; p = 0.02)
  • Caregiver group: significant correlations (p < 0.05). Other interactions were either not significant at 0.05 or represented weak correlation.
    • QOL-BREF social interactions, Adequate negative correlation to patient’s age (r = -0.43; p = 0.04).

Content Validity

  • An exploration of the quality of life construct was conducted in 15 culturally diverse field centers to establish areas/facets that participating centers considered relevant to the assessment of quality of life (Harper, 1996)
  • WHOQOL-Bref is the abbreviated version of WHOQOL-100, which can examine the quality of life of individuals after undergoing interventions. This test has been shown to be successful across many cultures (Chapin et al, 2010)

Face Validity

  • Test items contributed from 15 culturally diverse centers were pooled together (Harper, 1996)

  • After clustering semantically equivalent questions, 236 items covering 29 facets were included in a final assessment

  • Pilot work involved administration of this standardized assessment to at least 300 respondents within each of the 15 centers

Bibliography

Arun, M. P., Bharath, S., et al. (2011). "Relationship of depression, disability, and quality of life in Parkinson's disease: a hospital-based case-control study." Neurol India 59(2): 185-189. Find it on PubMed

Asnani, M. R., Lipps, G. E., & Reid, M. E. (2009). Utility of WHOQOL-BREF in measuring quality of life in sickle cell disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 7, 75. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-75 

Bonomi, A., Patrick, D., et al. (2000). "Validation of the United States' version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL) instrument." Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 53(1): 1-12. Find it on PubMed

Chapin, M. H. and Holbert, D. (2010). "Employment at closure is associated with enhanced quality of life and subjective well-being for persons with spinal cord injuries." Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin 54(1): 6-14. 

Chiu, Wen-Ta, Huang, Sheng-Jean, Hwang, Hei-Fen, Tsauo, Jau-Yih, Chen, Chun-Fu, Tsai, Shin-Han, & Lin, Mau-Roung. (2006). Use of the WHOQOL-BREF for evaluating persons with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Neurotrauma, 23(11), 1609-1620. 

Edwards, B. and O'Connell, B. (2003). "Internal consistency and validity of the Stroke Impact Scale 2.0 (SIS 2.0) and SIS-16 in an Australian sample." Quality of Life Research 12(8): 1127-1135. Find it on PubMed

Harper, A. (1996). Introduction, Administration, Scoring and Generic Version of the Assessment. Geneva, World Health Organization. Huang, T. T. and Wang, W. S. (2009). "Comparison of three established measures of fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults: psychometric testing." Int J Nurs Stud 46(10): 1313-1319. Find it on PubMed

Hirayama, Marcio Sussumu, Gobbi, Sebastião, Gobbi, Lilian Teresa Bucken, & Stella, Florindo. (2008). Quality of life (QoL) in relation to disease severity in Brazilian Parkinson's patients as measured using the WHOQOL-BREF. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 46(2), 147-160. 

Huang, T. T., & Wang, W. S. (2009). Comparison of three established measures of fear of falling in community-dwelling older adults: psychometric testing. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 46(10), 1313-1319. 

Hwang, H., Liang, W., et al. (2003). "Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling older people in Taiwan." Age and Ageing 32(6): 593. Find it on PubMed  

Jang, Y., Hsieh, C.-L., et al. (2004). "A validity study of the WHOQOL-BREF assessment in persons with traumatic spinal cord injury." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 85: 1890-1895. Find it on PubMed

Karimlou, M., Zayeri, F., et al. (2011). "Psychometric properties of the Persian version of the World Health Organization's quality of life questionnaire (WHOQOL-100)." Arch Iran Med 14(4): 281-287. Find it on PubMed

Kuyken, W., Orley, J., et al. (1995). "The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization." Soc sci med 41(10): 1403-1409.

Lin, M. R., Chiu, W. T., et al. (2010). "Longitudinal changes in the health-related quality of life during the first year after traumatic brain injury." Arch Phys Med Rehabil 91(3): 474-480. Find it on PubMed

Lin, M. R., Hwang, H. F., et al. (2007). "Comparisons of the brief form of the World Health Organization Quality of Life and Short Form-36 for persons with spinal cord injuries." Am J Phys Med Rehabil 86(2): 104-113. Find it on PubMed

Lucas-Carrasco, R., Skevington, S. M., et al. (2011). "Using the WHOQOL-BREF in persons with dementia: a validation study." Alzheimer Dis Assoc Disord 25(4): 345-351. Find it on PubMed

Schestatsky, P., Zanatto, V. C., et al. (2006). "Quality of life in a Brazilian sample of patients with Parkinson's disease and their caregivers." Revista Brasileira de Psiquiatria 28(3): 209-211. 

Zalihic, A., Markotic, V., et al. (2010). "Differences in quality of life after stroke and myocardial infarction." Psychiatr Danub 22(2): 241-248. Find it on PubMed

Zalihic, A., Markotic, V., et al. (2010). "Gender and quality of life after cerebral stroke." Bosn J Basic Med Sci 10(2): 94-99. Find it on PubMed

Save now, read later.