第五章 討論
第三節 應用與建議
1. 研 究 兩 種 管 理 模 式 施 測 世 界 衛 生 組 織 生 活 品 質 簡 明 版 問 卷 (WHOQOL-BREF)得分差異，結果面訪高於自填，建議未來在使用其 他問卷施測時，若不瞭解其問卷的心理特性可能所造成的偏差相關訊 息時，則要避免合併管理模式使用，以免產生過多的偏差削弱了真實 分數。
2. WHOQOL-BREF 在兩種管理模式之中，受測者為 65 歲以上及男性得 分差異較大，並且在四個範疇中，以社會範疇相差最大。
3. 在敏感的題目，例如性生活、負面感覺、接受自己的外表，在自填與 面訪的反應性不同，若未來採取面訪模式收案時，建議在研究方法上 改良，以減低偏差。
4. 面訪模式因有訪員的引導，所以對於用詞較艱深或題意含糊不清的題 目可以立即釐清受訪者對於題目的困惑，建議問卷設計的題目用詞盡 可能明確、簡單明瞭。
5. 透過瞭解 WHOQOL-BREF 在管理模式差別所在後，對於其可能所造 成的偏差，加以調節，提高在臨床實際應用上合併管理模式使用時的 測量準確性。
參考文獻
1 Goyder J. Face-to-face interviews and mailed questionnaires: The net difference in response rate. Public Opin Q 1985; 49:234-252
2 Wallace RB, Woolson RF. The Epidemiologic Study of the Elderly.New York: Oxford University Press, 1992
3 Fink P, Ornbol E, Huyse FJ, et al. A brief diagnostic screening instrument for mental disturbances in general medical wards. J Psychosom Res 2004; 57:17-24
4 Siemiatycki J. A comparison of mail, telephone, and home interview strategies for household health surveys, Am J Public Health 1979; 69: 238–245
5 Bassett SS, Magaziner J, Hebel JR. Reliability of proxy response on mental health indices for aged, community-dwelling women. Psychol Aging 1990; 5:127-132
6 Rothman ML, Hedrick SC, Bulcroft KA, et al. The validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 1991; 29:115-124
7 Magaziner J, Bassett SS, Hebel JR, et al. Use of proxies to measure health and functional status in epidemiologic studies of community-dwelling women aged 65 years and older. Am J Epidemiol 1996; 143:283-292
8 Magaziner J, Zimmerman SI, Gruber-Baldini AL, et al. Proxy reporting in five areas of functional status. Comparison with self-reports and observations of performance. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 146:418-428
9 Sneeuw KCA, Aaronson NK, Haan RJ, et al. Assessing Quality of life after stroke the value and limitations of proxy ratings. Stroke 1997; 28:1541-1549
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, et al. 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; 18:262-270
13 Leung KF, Wong WW, Tay MS, et al. Development and validation of the interview version of the Hong Kong Chinese WHOQOL-BREF. Qual Life Res 2005;
14:1413-1419
14 Liang WM, Kuo HW, Lin CF, et al. Factor construct of health-related quality of life in Taiwanese workers by WHOQOL-BREF questionnaire. Mid Taiwan J Med 2005;
10:113-122
15 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
16 Bjorner JB, Kreiner S, Ware JE, et al. Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:1189-1202
17 Food US, Administration D. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures:
use in medical product development to support labeling claims: February, 2006
18 Hawthorne G. Measuring Social isolation in older adults: Development and initial validation of the friendship scale. Soc Indic Res 2006; 77:521-548
19 Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, et al. Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49:135-140 20 Brambilla DJ, McKinlay SM. A comparison of responses to mailed questionnaires and
telephone interviews in a mixed mode health survey. Am J Epidemiol 1987;
126:962-971
21 O’Toole BI, Battistutta D, Long A, et al. A comparison of costs and data quality of three health survey methods: mail, telephone and personal home interview. Am J Epidemiol 1986; 124:317-328
22 Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health 2005; 27:281-291
23 Bowling A. Research Methods in Health: Investigating Health and Health Services:
Open University Press, 2001
24 Simon D, Schorr G, Wirtz M, et al. Development and first validation of the shared decision-making questionnaire. Patient Educ Couns, 2006; 63(3):319-27
25 McColl E, Jacoby A, Thomas L. Design and use of questionnaires: a review of best practice applicable to surveys of health service staff and patients: Core Research on behalf of the NCCHTA, 2001
26 Cartwright A. Health Surveys in Practice & Potential.London: King Edward's Hospital Fund for London, 1989
27 Scott C. Research on mail surveys. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 1961; 124:143-205 28 Austin P, Lewis D, Scammell B. A review of postal surveys: OPCS methodology series
paper. London: Office for Population Censuses and Surveys, 1977
29 Walker A, Government statistical S, Office for national S. Living in Britain: Results from the 2000 general household survey: Stationery Office, 2001
30 Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method. New York: Wiley, 2000
31 Sykes W CM. Effect of mode of interview: experiments in the UK. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1988
32 Gasquet I, Falissard B, Ravaud P. Impact of reminders and method of questionnaire distribution on patient response to mail-back satisfaction survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2001; 54:1174-1180
33 Measures O. Assessing inner-city patients' hospital experiences: A controlled trial of telephone interviews versus mailed surveys. Med Care 1997; 35:70-76
34 Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, et al.Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire:
new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ 1992; 305:160-164
35 Leeuw ED. Data quality in mail, telephone and face to face surveys: ERIC, 1992 36 Frankfort-Nachmias C, Nachmias D. Research methods in the social sciences: Edward
Arnold, 1976
37 Johnson WD, Mercante DE. Analyzing multivariate data in crossover designs using permutation tests. J Biopharm Stat 1996; 6:327-342
38 Tourangeau RK, Jobe JB, et al. Sources of error in a survey of sexual behaviour. J Official Stats 1997; 13:341–365
39 Tourangeau RK. The psychology of survey response; Chapter 10: Mode of data collection: Cambridge University Press, 2000
40 Bowling A, Bond M, Jenkinson C, et al. Short form 36 (SF-36) health survey questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the omnibus survey in Britain, the health survey for England and the oxford healthy life survey. J Public Health Med 1999; 21:255-270
41 Schuman PS. Questions and answers in attitude surveys: Experiments on question form, wording, and context: Social Science, 1981
43 Schwarz N, Hippler HJ. Subsequent questions may influence answers to preceding questions in mail surveys. Public Opin Q 1995; 59:93-97
44 Mikkelsen RL, Middelboe T, Pisinger C, et al. Anxiety and depression in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Nord J Psychiatry 2004; 58:65-70 45 Warner SL. Randomized response: a survey technique for eliminating evasive answer
bias. J Am Stat Assoc 1965; 60:63-66
46 Tourangeau R, Smith TW. Asking sensitive questions: The impact of data collection mode, question format, and question context. Public Opin Q 1996; 60:275-304
47 Presser S, Stinson L. Data collection mode and social desirability bias in self-reported religious attendance. Am Sociol Rev 1998; 63:137-145
48 Lyons RA, Wareham K, Lucas M, et al. SF-36 scores vary by method of administration:
implications for study design. J Public Health Med 1999; 21:41-45
49 Vuillemin A, Oppert JM, Guillemin F, et al. Self-administered questionnaire compared with interview to assess past-year physical activity. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2000;
32:1119-1124
50 Urbach DR, Tomlinson GA, Harnish JL, et al. A measure of disease-specific health-related quality of life for achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2005; 100:1668-1676 51 McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE, Jr. Comparisons of the costs and quality of
norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care 1994; 32:551-567
52 Perkins JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998; 51:969-973 53 Garcia-Losa M, Unda M, Badia X, et al. Effect of mode of administration on I–PSS
scores in a large BPH patient population. Eur Urol 2001; 40:451-457
54 Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, et al. Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms? Urology 1995; 46:341-345 55 Klepac RK, Dowling J, Rokke P, et al. Interview vs. paper-and-pencil administration of
the McGill pain questionnaire. Pain 1981; 11:241-246
56 Fowler FJ, Gallagher PM, Nederend S. Comparing telephone and mail responses to the CAHPS survey instrument. Med Care 1999; 37:MS41-49
57 Adams R, Rosier M, Campbell D, et al. Assessment of an asthma quality of life scale using item-response theory. Respirology 2005; 10:587-593
58 Bozlu M, Doruk E, Akbay E, et al. Effect of administration mode (patient vs physician) and patient's educational level on the Turkish version of the international prostate symptom score. Int J Urol 2002; 9:417-421
59 Durant LE, Carey MP. Self-administered questionnaires versus face-to-face interviews in assessing sexual behavior in young women. Arch Sex Behav 2000; 29:309-322 60 Kaplan CP, Hilton JF, Park-Tanjasiri S, et al. The effect of data collection mode on
smoking attitudes and behavior in young African American and Latina women:
Face-to-face interview versus self-administered questionnaires. Eval Rev 2001;
25:454-473
61 Nebot M, Celentano DD, Burwell L, et al. AIDS and behavioural risk factors in women in inner city Baltimore: a comparison of telephone and face to face surveys. J Epidemiol Community Health 1994; 48:412-418
62 Nicolaas G, Thomson K, Lynn P, et al. The feasibility of conducting electoral surveys in the UK by telephone: National Centre for Social Research, 2000
63 Midanik LT, Greenfield TK. Telephone versus in-person interviews for alcohol use:
results of the 2000 national alcohol survey. Drug Alcohol Depend 2003; 72:209-214 64 Evans M, Kessler D, Lewis G, et al. Assessing mental health in primary care research
using standardized scales: can it be carried out over the telephone? Psychol Med 2004;
34:157-162
65 Fouladi RT, McCarthy CJ, Moller NP. Paper-and-pencil or online? Evaluating mode effects on measures of emotional functioning and attachment. Assessment 2002;
9:204-215
66 Harewood GC, Yacavone RF, Locke GR, 3rd, et al. Prospective comparison of endoscopy patient satisfaction surveys: e-mail versus standard mail versus telephone.
Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96:3312-3317
67 Bower WF, Wong EM, Yeung CK. Development of a validated quality of life tool specific to children with Bladder dysfunction. Neurourol Urodyn 2006; 25:221-227 68 Bowling A. Research methods in health: Investigating health and health services: Open
University Press, 1997
69 Sudman S BN. Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1983
70 Knauper B, Schwarz N. Why your research may be out of order. Psychologist 2004;
17:28-31
71 Krosnick JA, Alwin DF. An evaluation of a cognitive theory of response-order effects in survey measurement. Public Opin Q 1987; 51:201-219
72 Schwarz N, Knauper B, Hippler HJ, et al. Rating scales: numeric values may change the meaning of scale labels. Public Opin Q 1991; 55:570-582
73 Sudman S, Bradburn NM, Schwarz N. Thinking about answers: the application of cognitive processes to survey methodology: Jossey-Bass, 1996
74 Knauper B. The impact of age and education on eesponse order effects in attitude measurement. Public Opin Q 1999; 63:347-370
75 Park DC. The basic mechanisms accounting for age-related decline in cognitive function. Cognitive aging: A primer, 2000
76 Schwarz N. Cognition, aging, and self-reports: psychology press philadelphia: PA, 1998
77 Dorant E, van den Brandt PA, Goldbohm RA, et al. Agreement between interview data and a self-administered questionnaire on dietary supplement use. Eur J Clin Nutr 1994;
48:180-188
78 Pruchno RA, Hayden JM. Interview modality: effects on costs and data quality in a sample of older women. J Aging Health 2000; 12:3-24
79 Parker C, Dewey M. Assessing research outcomes by postal questionnaire with telephone follow-up. Int J Epidemiol 2000; 29:1065-1069
80 Bradburn NM. Response effects. Handbook of Survey Research: Academic Press, 1983 81 Turner CF, Ku L, Rogers SM, et al. Adolescent sexual behavior, drug use, and violence:
increased reporting with computer survey technology. Science 1998; 280:867-873 82 Dooley D. Social research methods: Prentice Hall, 1990
83 Groves RM, Kahn RL. Surveys by telephone: a national comparison with personal interviews: Academic Press, 1979
84 Ryan JM, Corry JR, Attewell R, et al. A comparison of an electronic version of the SF-36 general health questionnaire to the standard paper version. Qual Life Res 2002;
11:19-26
85 Bowling A, Bannister D, Sutton S, et al. A multidimensional model of quality of life in
86 Hambleton RK. Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care 2006; 44:S182-S188
87 Staquet MJ, Hays RD, Fayers PM. Quality of life assessment in clinical trials: methods and practice. New York: Oxford Univeristy Press, 1999
88 Embretson SE, Reise SP. Item response theory for psychologists: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc, 2000
89 Uttaro T, Lehman A. Graded response modeling of the quality of life interview. Eval Program Plann 1999; 22:41-52
90 Garratt AM. Rasch analysis of the Roland disability questionnaire. Spine 2003;
28:79-84
91 Wang WC, Yao G, Tsai YJ, et al. Validating, improving reliability, and estimating correlation of the four subscales in the WHOQOL-BREF using multidimensional Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 2006; 15:607-620
92 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
93 Pfeiffer E. A short portable mental status questionnaire for the assessment of organic brain deficit in elderly patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1975; 23:433-441
94 Martinez J, Duenas R, Onis MC, et al. Adaptacion validacion al castellano del cuestionario de Pfeiffer (SPMSQ) para detectar la existencia de deterioro cognitivo en personas mayores de 65 anos. Med Clin (Barc) 2001; 117:129-134
95 張家銘, 蔡智能. 老年人之周全性評估. 台灣醫學 2003; 7:364-374
96 Hwang HF, Liang WM, Chiu YN, et al. Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF for community-dwelling older people in Taiwan. Age Ageing 2003; 32:593-600
97 Fenton KA, Johnson AM, McManus S, et al. Measuring sexual behaviour:
methodological challenges in survey research. Sex Transm Infect 2001; 77:84-92 98 Rejean H ea. Refusal and information bias association with postal questionnaire and
face-to-face interviews in very elderly subjects. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49:373-381 99 Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and validity assessment: Sage Publications, 1979 100 Shrout PE FJ. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull
1979; 86:420–428
101 Chu M. Arthritis impact measurement scales 2: translation, validation, utilization in clinical studies and the development of a short form: University of Hong Kong, 2005 102 Lawton G, Bhakta BB, Chamberlain MA, et al. The Behcet's disease activity index.
Rheumatology. Rheumatology 2004; 43:73-78
103 Kiesler S, Sproull LS. Response effects in the electronic survey. Public Opin Q 1986;
50:402-413
104 Sanitaria G. Comparison between telephone and self-administration of short form health survey questionnaire (SF-36). Gac Sanit 2005; 19:6-15
105 Hebert JR, Ma Y, Clemow L, et al. Gender differences in social desirability and social approval bias in dietary self-report. Am J Epidemiol 1997; 146:1046-1055
106 Naumann VJ, Byrne GJ. WHOQOL-BREF as a measure of quality of life in older patients with depression. Int Psychogeriatr 2004; 16:159-173
107 Skevington SM. Advancing cross-cultural research on quality of life: observations drawn from the WHOQOL development. Qual Life Res 2002; 11:135-144
108 Herche J, Engelland B. Reversed-polarity items and scale unidimensionality. Int
Psychogeriatr 1996; 24:366-374
109 Reckase MD, Ackerman TA, Carlson JE. Building a unidimensional test using multidimensional items. J Educ Res 1988; 25:193-203
110 Steinbuchel N, Lischetzke T, Gurny M, et al. Assessing quality of life in older people:
psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF. Eur J Ageing 2006; 3:116-122 111 Brown Jr BW. The crossover experiment for clinical trials. Biometrics 1980; 36:69-79
世界衛生組織生活品質問卷(WHOQOL-BREF)
□完全沒有機會 □少許機會 □中等程度機會 □很有機會 □完全有機會