Psychometric property evaluation of a midlife women quality of life questionnaire

  • Authors

    • Kathleen Putnam Old Dominion University School of Nursing
    2014-10-22
    https://doi.org/10.14419/ijans.v3i2.3192

  • Abstract

    Background: Quality of life in midlife women may be negatively impacted by biopsychosocial factors including midlife developmental tasks and hormonal changes. Many instruments measure physical aspects of menopause, but few specifically measure global quality of life in midlife women within a biopsychosocial perspective.

    Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability and validity of the Midlife Women Quality of Life Questionnaire (MWQOL).

    Methods: The original 30-item MWQOL was piloted with a sample of 166 midlife women. Items were derived from the literature and the investigator’s practice experience with this population, which supports the content validity of the instrument. After psychometric evaluation of the first version, 201 midlife women aged 45-64 completed the revised 17-item instrument. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation was used in the factor analysis to determine the construct validity of the MWQOL. Concurrent administration of the Utian Quality of Life (UQOL) instrument was used to determine convergent validity.

    Results: Three factors emerged from the MWQOL: physical (Cronbach’s alpha 0.82), generativity (Cronbach’s alpha 0.82), and resolution (Cronbach’s alpha 0.78). Two identical items on the MWQOL and the UQOL (“I feel physically fit”) correlated at 0.863. Additionally, 56.5% of the variance in the 17 items of the MWQOL was accounted for by these three factors. Pearson’s correlation between the MWQOL and the UQOL instrument was significant at .768.

    Conclusions: Findings suggest that the MWQOL is a valid and reliable measure of quality of life for a sample of midlife women. Measures that will improve understanding of the psychological, social, and physical health of midlife women could help providers better evaluate midlife women’s quality of life and assess the effectiveness of specific interventions aimed at improving it.

    Keywords: Middle Aged, Quality Of Life, Reliability, Validity, Women’s Health.

  • References

    1. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, Annual Social and Economic supplement (2013) Population by age and sex, 2012. Available at: http://www.census.gov/population/age/data/2012comp.html. Accessed May 25, 2014
    2. U.S. National Center for Health Statistics (2010) Life expectancy, by sex, age, and race: 2008. National Data for 2008, 59 (2). Available at: http://cdc.gov/nchs/deaths.htm. Accessed May 25, 2014.
    3. Taylor A, Larson S, & Correa-de-Araujo R (2006) Women’s health care utilization and expenditures. Women’s Health Issues, 16 66-79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2005.11.001.
    4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (2010) ten leading causes of death among women aged 18 and older, by age. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars. Accessed July 7, 2013.
    5. Ogden C, Carroll M, Kit B, Flegal K (2013) Prevalence of obesity among adults: United States, 2011-2012. National Center for Health Statistics Data Brief, 131. Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db131.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2014.
    6. Sasser A, Rousculp M, Birnbaum H, Oster E, Lufkin E, & Mallet, D (2005) Economic burden of osteoporosis, breast cancer, and cardiovascular disease among postmenopausal women in an employed population. Women’s Health Issues, 15 (3), 97-108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.whi.2004.11.006.
    7. WHO Division of Mental Health (1993) WHO-QOL Study Protocol: The Development of the World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (MNG/PSF/93). World Health Organization, Geneva.
    8. PROQOLID: Patient-Reported Outcome and Quality of Life Instruments Database (2014). Available at: http://www.proqolid.org/. Accessed May 27, 2014.
    9. Girod I, de la Loge C, Keininger D, & Hunter M (2006) Development of a revised version of the Women’s Health Questionnaire. Climacteric, 9 (1), 4-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13697130500487372.
    10. Freeman E, Sammel M, Liu L, & Martin P (2003) Psychometric properties of a menopausal symptom list. Menopause, 10 (3), 258-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00042192-200310030-00014.
    11. Lewis J, Hilditch J, & Wong C (2005) Further psychometric property development of the Menopause-Specific Quality of Life questionnaire and the development of a modified version, MENQOL-Intervention questionnaire. Maturitas, 50 (3), 209-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2004.06.015.
    12. Heinemann K, Ruebig A, Potthoff P, Schneider H, Strelow F, Heinemann L, & Thai D (2004) The menopause rating scale (MRS) scale: A methodological review. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-45.
    13. Uitan W, Janata J, Kingsberg S, Schluchter M, & Hamilton J. (2002) The Utian Quality of Life (UQOL) Scale: Development and validation of an instrument to quantify quality of life through and beyond menopause. Menopause: The Journal of the North American Menopause Society, 9 (6), 402-410. doi: 10.1097/01. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.
    14. Utian W (2006) Hormones and quality of life after surgical menopause. Journal of Women’s Health, 15 (8). http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2006.15.975.
    15. Healthy People 2020 Foundation Health Measure Report. Health-Related Quality of Life and Well-Being, Revised November 2010. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/about/DefaultPressRelease.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2014
    16. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS announces the nation’s new health promotion and disease prevention agenda. Available at: www.hhs.gov/news. Accessed May 15, 2014
    17. Engle G (1977) the need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196 (4286), 129-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.847460.
    18. Borrell-Carrio F, Suchman A, & Epstein R (2004) the biopsychosocial model 25 years later: Principles, practice, and scientific inquiry. Annals of Family Medicine, 2 (6). http://dx.doi.org/10.1370/afm.245.
    19. Smith R (2002) the biopsychosocial revolution: Interviewing and provider-patient relationships becoming key issues for primary care. J Gen Intern Med, 17 (4), 309-310. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.20210.x.
    20. Erickson EH (1963) Childhood and Society. Norton, New York.
    21. Weiland S (1993) Erik Erikson: Ages, stages, and stories. Generations, 17 (2), 17.
    22. Misener TR, Phillips KD, & McGraw E (2000) psychosocial development and health promoting lifestyle. The Journal of Theory Construction & Testing, 4, 14-19.
    23. United States Department of Labor Women’s Bureau. Women in the labor force in 2010. Available at: http://www.dol.gov/wb/factsheets/Qf-laborforce. Accessed February 21, 2014
    24. Youngkin EQ, Davis MS, Schadewald DM, & Juve C. (Eds.) (2013) Women's Health: A Primary Care Clinical Guide (4th Ed.). Pearson, New Jersey.
    25. Strickland OL, Moloney MF, Dietrich AS, Myerburg S, Cotsonis GA, & Johnson RV (2003) Measurement issues related to data collection on the World Wide Web. Advances in Nursing Science, 26, 246-256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00012272-200310000-00003.

  • Downloads

  • How to Cite

    Putnam, K. (2014). Psychometric property evaluation of a midlife women quality of life questionnaire. International Journal of Advanced Nursing Studies, 3(2), 101-105. https://doi.org/10.14419/ijans.v3i2.3192

    Received date: 2014-07-16

    Accepted date: 2014-10-05

    Published date: 2014-10-22