Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale

Yuki Morooka, Koji Umeshita, Akinobu Taketomi, Ken Shirabe, Yoshihiko Maehara, Mayumi Yamamoto, Tsuyoshi Shimamura, Akihiko Oshita, Keiko Kanno, Hideki Ohdan, Naoki Kawagishi, Susumu Satomi, Kaoru Ogawa, Kuniko Hagiwara, Hiroaki Nagano

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity. Methods: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital. Results: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency. Conclusion: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)732-740
Number of pages9
JournalSurgery today
Volume43
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 1 2013

Fingerprint

Living Donors
Reproducibility of Results
Quality of Life
Liver
Tissue Donors
Statistical Factor Analysis
Health Surveys
Cicatrix
Health
Surveys and Questionnaires

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Cite this

Morooka, Y., Umeshita, K., Taketomi, A., Shirabe, K., Maehara, Y., Yamamoto, M., ... Nagano, H. (2013). Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale. Surgery today, 43(7), 732-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2

Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale. / Morooka, Yuki; Umeshita, Koji; Taketomi, Akinobu; Shirabe, Ken; Maehara, Yoshihiko; Yamamoto, Mayumi; Shimamura, Tsuyoshi; Oshita, Akihiko; Kanno, Keiko; Ohdan, Hideki; Kawagishi, Naoki; Satomi, Susumu; Ogawa, Kaoru; Hagiwara, Kuniko; Nagano, Hiroaki.

In: Surgery today, Vol. 43, No. 7, 01.07.2013, p. 732-740.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Morooka, Y, Umeshita, K, Taketomi, A, Shirabe, K, Maehara, Y, Yamamoto, M, Shimamura, T, Oshita, A, Kanno, K, Ohdan, H, Kawagishi, N, Satomi, S, Ogawa, K, Hagiwara, K & Nagano, H 2013, 'Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale', Surgery today, vol. 43, no. 7, pp. 732-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2
Morooka Y, Umeshita K, Taketomi A, Shirabe K, Maehara Y, Yamamoto M et al. Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale. Surgery today. 2013 Jul 1;43(7):732-740. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2
Morooka, Yuki ; Umeshita, Koji ; Taketomi, Akinobu ; Shirabe, Ken ; Maehara, Yoshihiko ; Yamamoto, Mayumi ; Shimamura, Tsuyoshi ; Oshita, Akihiko ; Kanno, Keiko ; Ohdan, Hideki ; Kawagishi, Naoki ; Satomi, Susumu ; Ogawa, Kaoru ; Hagiwara, Kuniko ; Nagano, Hiroaki. / Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale. In: Surgery today. 2013 ; Vol. 43, No. 7. pp. 732-740.
@article{2f0b8d32d3dc42d28ff7965a33c52c2e,
title = "Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale",
abstract = "Purpose: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity. Methods: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital. Results: Of the 447 (54.5 {\%}) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for {"}digestive symptoms{"}, α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor {"}digestive symptoms{"} needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency. Conclusion: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.",
author = "Yuki Morooka and Koji Umeshita and Akinobu Taketomi and Ken Shirabe and Yoshihiko Maehara and Mayumi Yamamoto and Tsuyoshi Shimamura and Akihiko Oshita and Keiko Kanno and Hideki Ohdan and Naoki Kawagishi and Susumu Satomi and Kaoru Ogawa and Kuniko Hagiwara and Hiroaki Nagano",
year = "2013",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "732--740",
journal = "Surgery Today",
issn = "0941-1291",
publisher = "Springer Japan",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale

AU - Morooka, Yuki

AU - Umeshita, Koji

AU - Taketomi, Akinobu

AU - Shirabe, Ken

AU - Maehara, Yoshihiko

AU - Yamamoto, Mayumi

AU - Shimamura, Tsuyoshi

AU - Oshita, Akihiko

AU - Kanno, Keiko

AU - Ohdan, Hideki

AU - Kawagishi, Naoki

AU - Satomi, Susumu

AU - Ogawa, Kaoru

AU - Hagiwara, Kuniko

AU - Nagano, Hiroaki

PY - 2013/7/1

Y1 - 2013/7/1

N2 - Purpose: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity. Methods: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital. Results: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency. Conclusion: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.

AB - Purpose: To develop a living liver donor (LLD) quality of life (QOL) scale and test its reliability and validity. Methods: We sent a draft questionnaire comprising 38 questions to 965 LLDs from five hospitals. To evaluate test-retest reliability, the questionnaire was re-sent 2 weeks later to some of the donors from one hospital. Results: Of the 447 (54.5 %) donors who responded, 15 were excluded. Factor analysis of 26 items extracted 7 subscales; namely, damage from the operation, scarring, satisfaction, burden, after-effects, digestive symptoms, and lack of understanding of donor health. We analyzed construct validity on the basis of factor analysis and observed significant correlations among the seven subscales. Criterion-related validity was confirmed by significant correlation with the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey scores. None of the subscales showed unreasonable values. We evaluated the subscale reliability for internal consistency (α = 0.670-0.868, except for "digestive symptoms", α = 0.431) and test-retest reliability (r = 0.749-0.918). The factor "digestive symptoms" needs careful consideration because of low internal consistency. Conclusion: The findings of this study confirmed the reliability and validity of the LLD QOL scale, which can be used for quantitatively evaluating the QOL of LLDs.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879252827&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879252827&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2

DO - 10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2

M3 - Article

VL - 43

SP - 732

EP - 740

JO - Surgery Today

JF - Surgery Today

SN - 0941-1291

IS - 7

ER -