+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Reliability, construct and criterion validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 score: a short measure for children and adolescents’ well-being and health-related quality of life

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          To assess the criterion and construct validity of the KIDSCREEN-10 well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score, a short version of the KIDSCREEN-52 and KIDSCREEN-27 instruments.


          The child self-report and parent report versions of the KIDSCREEN-10 were tested in a sample of 22,830 European children and adolescents aged 8–18 and their parents ( n = 16,237). Correlation with the KIDSCREEN-52 and associations with other generic HRQoL measures, physical and mental health, and socioeconomic status were examined. Score differences by age, gender, and country were investigated.


          Correlations between the 10-item KIDSCREEN score and KIDSCREEN-52 scales ranged from r = 0.24 to 0.72 ( r = 0.27–0.72) for the self-report version (proxy-report version). Coefficients below r = 0.5 were observed for the KIDSCREEN-52 dimensions Financial Resources and Being Bullied only. Cronbach alpha was 0.82 (0.78), test–retest reliability was ICC = 0.70 (0.67) for the self- (proxy-)report version. Correlations between other children self-completed HRQoL questionnaires and KIDSCREEN-10 ranged from r = 0.43 to r = 0.63 for the KIDSCREEN children self-report and r = 0.22–0.40 for the KIDSCREEN parent proxy report. Known group differences in HRQoL between physically/mentally healthy and ill children were observed in the KIDSCREEN-10 self and proxy scores. Associations with self-reported psychosomatic complaints were r = −0.52 (−0.36) for the KIDSCREEN-10 self-report (proxy-report). Statistically significant differences in KIDSCREEN-10 self and proxy scores were found by socioeconomic status, age, and gender.


          Our results indicate that the KIDSCREEN-10 provides a valid measure of a general HRQoL factor in children and adolescents, but the instrument does not represent well most of the single dimensions of the original KIDSCREEN-52. Test–retest reliability was slightly below a priori defined thresholds.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires.

          Recently, an increasing number of systematic reviews have been published in which the measurement properties of health status questionnaires are compared. For a meaningful comparison, quality criteria for measurement properties are needed. Our aim was to develop quality criteria for design, methods, and outcomes of studies on the development and evaluation of health status questionnaires. Quality criteria for content validity, internal consistency, criterion validity, construct validity, reproducibility, longitudinal validity, responsiveness, floor and ceiling effects, and interpretability were derived from existing guidelines and consensus within our research group. For each measurement property a criterion was defined for a positive, negative, or indeterminate rating, depending on the design, methods, and outcomes of the validation study. Our criteria make a substantial contribution toward defining explicit quality criteria for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Our criteria can be used in systematic reviews of health status questionnaires, to detect shortcomings and gaps in knowledge of measurement properties, and to design validation studies. The future challenge will be to refine and complete the criteria and to reach broad consensus, especially on quality criteria for good measurement properties.
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A Research Note

              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization.

              This paper describes the World Health Organization's project to develop a quality of life instrument (the WHOQOL). It outlines the reasons that the project was undertaken, the thinking that underlies the project, the method that has been followed in its development and the current status of the project. The WHOQOL assesses individuals' perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns. It has been developed collaboratively in several culturally diverse centres over four years. Piloting of the WHOQOL on some 4500 respondents in 15 cultural settings has been completed. On the basis of this data the revised WHOQOL Field Trial Form has been finalized, and field testing is currently in progress. The WHOQOL produces a multi-dimensional profile of scores across six domains and 24 sub-domains of quality of life.

                Author and article information

                +49-40-741057378 , +49-40-741055105 ,
                Qual Life Res
                Quality of Life Research
                Springer Netherlands (Dordrecht )
                30 July 2010
                30 July 2010
                December 2010
                : 19
                : 10
                : 1487-1500
                [1 ]Child Public Health, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
                [2 ]Agència d’Avaluació de Tecnologia i Recerca Mèdiques, Barcelona, Spain
                [3 ]Health Services Research Group, Institut Municipal d’Investigació Mèdica (IMIM-Hospital del Mar), Barcelona, Spain
                [4 ]CIBER en Epidemiologia y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Barcelona, Spain
                [5 ]Department of Public Health, University Hospital of Marseille, Marseille, France
                [6 ]TNO, Prevention and Health and Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
                [7 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
                [8 ]Ludwig Boltzmann-Institute for Sociology of Health and Medicine, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
                [9 ]Social and Behavioural Health Research, Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Berne, Berne, Switzerland
                [10 ]Prague Psychiatric Centre, Prague, Czech Republic
                [11 ]Department of Epidemiology, National Research Institute of Mother & Child, Warsaw, Poland
                [12 ]Child Health Department, Health Promotion and Development Centre, Budapest, Hungary
                [13 ]Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, Athens, Greece
                [14 ]Karlstad University, Karlstad, Sweden
                [15 ]Programme of Action for Children, Dublin, Ireland
                [16 ]Department for Psychosomatics in Children and Adolescents, Center for Obstetrics and Pediatrics, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistr. 52, 20246 Hamburg, Germany
                © The Author(s) 2010
                Custom metadata
                © Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010


                Comment on this article