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 journalArticlepeer-review

7 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

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Surgery

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this