PuSH - Publikationsserver des Helmholtz Zentrums München: The German version of the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire: Reliability, responsiveness and structural validity.

Informationen

Hinweise zu Qualitätskriterien von Zeitschriften

Open-Access-Richtlinie der Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft 2016

CC Licencences

Metriken für Publikationen

Navigation

Startseite

English

Recherche

Erweiterte Suche

Durchblättern nach ...

... HMGU-Autoren/Konsortien

... Organisationsstruktur

... Zeitschriften

... Publikationstypen

... Forschungsdaten

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Erscheinungsjahr

Publikationen im Überblick

Statistik

HGF Fortschrittsbericht

OA Publikationen

Eintragen

Neue Publikation eintragen

Neue Publikation holen aus...

...EVA

Fehlende Publikation melden

Highlights

Suche

Hilfe & Kontakt

Ansprechpartner

Hilfe

Datenschutz

Helmholtz Open Science

Bibliometrische Indikatoren

SHERPA/RoMEO

DOAJ

Export:

Text

Endnote (RIS) BIB

BibTeX

Fischer, S.* ; Meisinger, C. ; Linseisen, J. ; von Scheidt, W.* ; Berghaus, T.M.* ; Kirchberger, I.

The German version of the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire: Reliability, responsiveness and structural validity.

Qual. Life Res. 31, 2235-2245 (2022)

Verlagsversion

Forschungsdaten

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metriken
Zusatzinfos

Purpose: The Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life (PEmb-QoL) questionnaire is the only existing disease-specific instrument for measuring quality of life after pulmonary embolism (PE). It includes six dimensions: frequency of complaints, limitations in activities of daily living, work-related problems, social limitations, intensity of complaints and emotional complaints. The present study aimed to determine the psychometric properties including responsiveness and structural validity of the German version. Methods: The analysis used data from participants of the LEA cohort study at University Hospital Augsburg. The PEmb-QoL was administered via postal surveys 3, 6 and 12 months post-PE. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were evaluated by calculating Cronbach’s alpha and intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Standardized response means (SRM) were calculated for investigating responsiveness. For evaluating the fit of the factor structure, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted. Results: Overall, we used data from 299 patients 3 months after PE. Cronbach’s alpha (0.87–0.97) and ICC (0.53–0.90) were in an acceptable to good range. SRM scores showed good responsiveness of all dimensions. CFA revealed the four-factor model including one general factor to have a good model fit. Conclusion: Despite existing floor effect, most standard criteria of reliability and validity were met and indications for appropriateness of the PEmb-QoL summary score could be found. Apart from some restrictions concerning the factor structure and the dimension of social limitations, our results support the use of the PEmb-QoL questionnaire for evaluating PE-specific quality of life. Future studies should seek replication in different samples to ensure generalizability of the findings.

Impact Factor

Scopus SNIP

Altmetric

3.440

1.771