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

Information

Clues to quality of journals

Open Access Policy of Helmholtz Association 2016

CC Licencences

Publication Metrics

Navigation

Home

Deutsch

EVA: Electronic Publishing

New EVA Application

Research

Advanced Search

Browse by ...

... HMGU-Authors/Consortia

... Organizational Structure

... Journal

... Publication Type

... Research Data

... Arbeitsgruppen

... Publication Year

Publication overview

Statistics

Statistics (last 5 years)

OA Publications

Publish

Submit Publication

Import publication from...

...EVA

Report missing publication

Highlights

Support & Contact

Contact persons

Help

Data protection

Helmholtz Open Science

JANE Journal Estimator

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)

Publ. Version/Full Text

Research data

DOI

PMC

	Open Access Hybrid

Abstract
Metrics
Extra information

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