第六章 結論與建議
第三節 應用與建議
1. 由於本研究在社區中取樣，相對於在醫院取樣之研究，本研究之 老人較為健康，故許多題目相對較為簡單，以致於在難度的估計上，較 簡單的題目的誤差較大，由於當初收案時，臥病在床或住院之老人並未 收案，建議增加此部份老人之資料，使得問卷整體的估計能夠更完整，
以期能更準確的評估WHOQOL-BREF 各種難度題目之特質。
2. 從本研究與國健局 65 歲以下族群的比較下，發現 65 歲以上老人 和一般族群的生活品質的特質是不盡相同的，因老人乃是社會中需要更 多關心的一個大族群。日後可以針對這兩族群間的差異進行研究，以期 更深入瞭解老人不同於年輕族群之特質，能更有效地提供老人合適的社 會及醫療服務的幫助。
3.未來若要對 WHOQOL-BREF 進行修改，若要新增題目，則建議應 增加題目難度的範圍，亦即加入在極端好及極端差兩端的題目，以提供 全面性精確的測量。
4.在生活品質的評估中，太長的問卷常常會使受測者失去耐心，藉由 IRT 的發展可建立生活品質題庫，算出每題的訊息，結合電腦的應用，可 據此發展電腦適性試驗(computerized adapted test)提供給每個受測者最適 合且能夠提供最大訊息的題目，使研究者能更夠用最少的題目準確地估 計受測者的能力。
參考文獻
1. HAYS RD, MORALES LS, REISE SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000;38:II28-42.
2. CELLA D, CHANG CH. A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care 2000;38:II66-72.
3. EMBRETSON SE, REISE SP. Item repsonse theory for psychologists. New Jersey:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
4. HAMBELTON RK, SWAMINATHAN H, ROGERS HJ. Fundamentals of Item Response Theory. Lodon: SAGE, 1991.
5. CONRAD KJ, SMITH EV,JR. International conference on objective measurement:
applications of Rasch analysis in health care. Med Care 2004;42:I1-6.
6. FITZPATRICK R, NORQUIST JM, DAWSON J, JENKINSON C. Rasch scoring of outcomes of total hip replacement. J Clin Epidemiol 2003;56:68-74.
7. FRALEY RC, WALLER NG, BRENNAN KA. An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;78:350-65.
8. DUNCAN PW, BODE RK, MIN LAI S, PERERA S. Rasch analysis of a new
stroke-specific outcome scale: the Stroke Impact Scale. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2003;84:950-63.
9. NAUMANN VJ, BYRNE GJA. WHOQOL-BREF as a measure of quality of life in older patients with depression. International Psychogeriatrics 2004;16:159–173.
10. WHO. Field trial WHOQOL-100: Scoring the WHOQOL. Geneva: World Health Organization 1995.
11. WHO. Field trial WHOQOL-100: The 100 questions with response scales. Geneva:
World Health Organization, 1995.
12. 林茂榮, 姚開屏, 黃景祥, 王榮德. 台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷量尺語 詞的選擇. 中華公共衛生雜誌 1999;18:262-70.
13. HWANG HF, LIANG WM, CHIU YN, LIN MR. Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling older people in Taiwan. Age Ageing 2003;32:593-600.
14. MCHORNEY CA, COHEN AS. Equating health status measures with item response theory: illustrations with functional status items. Med Care 2000;38:II43-59.
15. ANDRICH D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004;42:I7-16.
16. MALLINSON T, STELMACK J, VELOZO C. A comparison of the separation ratio and coefficient alpha in the creation of minimum item sets. Med Care 2004;42:I17-24.
17. NORQUIST JM, FITZPATRICK R, DAWSON J, JENKINSON C. Comparing alternative Rasch-based methods vs raw scores in measuring change in health. Med Care 2004;42:I25-36.
18. TENNANT A, PENTA M, TESIO L, et al. Assessing and adjusting for cross-cultural validity of impairment and activity limitation scales through differential item functioning within the framework of the Rasch model: the PRO-ESOR project.
Med Care 2004;42:I37-48.
19. HALEY SM, COSTER WJ, ANDRES PL, et al. Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care 2004;42:I49-61.
20. COSTER WJ, HALEY SM, ANDRES PL, LUDLOW LH, BOND TL, NI PS. Refining the conceptual basis for rehabilitation outcome measurement: personal care and instrumental activities domain. Med Care 2004;42:I62-72.
21. NIJSTEN T, UNAEZE J, STERN RS. Refinement and reduction of the Impact of Psoriasis Questionnaire: classical test theory vs. Rasch analysis. Br J Dermatol 2006;154:692-700.
22. 行政院衛生署統計處. 民國 93 年衛生統計重要指標. In: 行政院衛生署統計處, ed.: 行政院衛生署, 2006.
23. LAWTON MP, WINDLEY PG, T.O.B. Aging and the Environment: Theoretical Approaches. New York, 1982.
24. MCHORNEY CA, WARE JE,JR., LU JF, SHERBOURNE CD. The MOS 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions, and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32:40-66.
25. BINDMAN AB, KEANE D, LURIE N. Measuring health changes among severely ill patients. The floor phenomenon. Med Care 1990;28:1142-52.
26. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med 1998;28:551-8.
27. WHO. WHO Constitution. In: Organization WH, ed. Geneva: WHO, 1948.
28. FAU HI, CARR AJ. Measuring quality of life: Using quality of life measures in the clinical. Bmj 2001;322:1297-300.
29. TSAI S-Y, CHI L-Y, LEE L-S, CHOU P. Health-related quality of life among urban, rural, and island community. J Formos Med Assoc 2004;103:196-204.
30. BOND TG, FOX CM. Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2001.
31. STAQUET MJ, HAYS RD, FAYERS PM. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials:
Methods and practice. In: Hays RD, ed. Item response theory model. New York:
Oxford Univeristy Press, 1999.
32. REISE SP, WIDAMAN KF, PUGH RH. Confirmatory factor analysis and item repsonse theory: two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. . Psychological Bulletin 1993;114:552-66.
33. HALEY SM, MCHORNEY CA, WARE JE. Evaluatione of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. Unidimensionality and reproducibiilty of the Rasch item scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1994;47:671-84.
34. RASCH G. An item analysis which takes individual difference into account. British Journal of Mathematical and Statisitical Psychology 1996;19:49-57.
35. UTTARO T, LEHMAN A. Graded response modeling of the Quality of Life Interview.
Evaluation and Program Planning 1999;22:41-52.
36. WIKIPEDIA. Georg RaschMathematics, 2006.
37. EVERETT S, RICHARD S. Introduction to Rasch Measurement: Theory, Models and Applications An overview of the familiy of Rasch measurement models.
Sacramento, CA: Jam Press, 2004.
38. ANDERSEN EB. A goodness of fit for the Rasch model. Psychometrika 1973;38:123-40.
39. DOUGLAS G, WRIGHT BD. The two-category model for objective measurement Chicago: University of Chicago, MESA Psychometric Laboratory, 1986.
40. GARRATT AM. Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire. Spine 2003;28:79-84.
41. PRIETO L, ALONSO J, LAMARCA R. Classical test theory versus Rasch analysis for quality of life questionnaire reduction. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003;1:27.
42. ROORDA LD, JONES CA, WALTZ M, et al. Satisfactory cross cultural equivalence of the Dutch WOMAC in patients with hip osteoarthritis waiting for arthroplasty. Ann Rheum Dis 2004;63:36-42.
43. HART DL, MIODUSKI JE, STRATFORD PW. Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol
44. JENKINSON C, NORQUIST JM, FITZPATRICK R. Deriving summary indices of health status from the Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Assessment Questionnaires
(ALSAQ-40 and ALSAQ-5). J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2003;74:242-5.
45. LAI JG, CELLA DG, CHANG CHG, BODE RKG, HEINEMANN AWG. Item banking to improve, shorten and computerize self-reported fatigue: An illustration of steps to create a core item bank from the FACIT-Fatigue Scale. Quality of Life Research 2003;12:485-501.
46. LINACRE JM. A user's Guide to WINSTEPS: Rasch-Model Computer Programs.
Chicago: Winsteps company, 2006.
47. WANG WC, YAO G, TSAI YJ, WANG JD, HSIEH CL. Validating, Improving Reliability, and Estimating Correlation of the Four Subscales in the WHOQOL-BREF using Multidimensional Rasch Analysis. Qual Life Res 2006;15:607-20.
48. 台灣版世界衛生組織生活品質問卷發展小組. 台灣簡明版世界衛生組織生活
品質問卷之發展及使用手冊(第一版). 台北: 國立台灣大學公衛學院生活品質 研究室, 2000.
49. GEORGE LK, LANDERMAN R, D.G.B, ANTHONY C. Cognitive impairment. In:
Robins LN, Regier DA, eds. Psychometric Disorders in America: The Epidemiological Catchment Area Study. New York: Free Press, 1991.
50. WRIGHT BD, STONE MH. Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Pr., 1979.
51. WRIGHT BD, O.N.M. Rating scale analysis: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Pr., 1982.
52. WOLFE F, MICHAUD K, PINCUS T. Development and validation of the health assessment questionnaire II: a revised version of the health assessment questionnaire. Arthritis Rheum 2004;50:3296-305.
附錄一 世界衛生組織生活品質問卷（台灣簡明版）
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意 20.您滿意自己的人際關係嗎?
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意
21.您滿意自己的性生活嗎?
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意
22.您滿意朋友給您的支持嗎?
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意
23.您滿意自己住所的狀況嗎?
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意
24.您滿意醫療保健服務的方便程度嗎？
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意
25.您滿意所使用的交通運輸方式嗎？
□極不滿意 □不滿意 □中等程度滿意 □滿意 □極滿意
26.您常有負面的感受嗎？（如傷心、緊張、焦慮、憂鬱等）
□從來沒有 □不常有 □一半有一半沒有 □很常有 □一直都有
27.您覺得自己有面子或被尊重嗎?
□完全沒有 □有一點有 □中等程度有 □很有 □極有
28.您想吃的食物通常都能吃到嗎?
□從來沒有 □不常有 □一半有一半沒有 □很常有 □一直都有