世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版、

(1)

世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版、 SF-36 、標準賭博法、時間交換法以及評分量尺的比較─以

創傷性脊髓損傷患者為例



本研究為進行世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版、 Short -Form 36 (SF-36) 、標準賭博法、時間交換法、以及評分量尺間的比較。研究樣本為中華民國頭部及脊髓損傷研究小組於 1991-1996 年所收集的 809 位脊髓損傷者，其中有 187 位完成電話訪談。研究中針對五種生活品質測量工具的分數分佈情形、內部一致性、區辨效度以及收斂效度進行評估。

結果顯示世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版與評分量尺分數分佈無天花板或地板效應，但 SF-36 、標準賭博法、以及時間交換法三者有。

世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版、 SF-36 、標準賭博法、時間交換法、以及評分量尺遺漏值率分別為 1.1 至 8.6 、 2.7 至 4.8 、 3.8 、 5.

1 、 6.0 。而世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版與 SF-36 各範疇高巴氏 α(Cronbach’s α) 係數範圍分別為 0.71 至 0.87 、 0.74 至 0.98 。區辨能力方面，五種測量工具中以世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版較佳。另外，世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版與 SF-36 、標準賭博法、時間交換法、以及評分量尺間的皮爾森相關係數依次為 0.36 至 0 .76 、 0.53 至 0.66 、 0.20 至 0.35 、 0.17 至 0.33 。整體而言，世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版較適合應用於脊髓損傷者，而世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版、 SF-36 、評分量尺三種量表與標準賭博法

、時間交換法所表達的生活品質概念有所不同。

(2)

Comparison the WHOQOL-BREF, SF-36, Standard Gamble, Time Trade-off and Global Rating in Persons with Traumatic Spinal

Cord Injury



The purpose of this study was to compare the brief version of the World Health Organization

世界衛生組織生活品質問卷台灣簡明版、



Comparison the WHOQOL-BREF, SF-36, Standard Gamble, Time Trade-off and Global Rating in Persons with Traumatic Spinal

Cord Injury

The purpose of this study was to compare the brief version of the World Health Organization

Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) with the Short-Form 36 (SF-36), the standard gamble (SG)

, the time trade-off (TTO), and the global rating (GR) among persons with traumatic spinal cor

d injury (SCI). During the period of July, 1991 to June, 1996, 809 cases with SCI were collect

ed by the Head Injury and Spinal Cord Injury Group, of which 187 completed the telephone in

terview. Score distributions, internal consistency, and discriminant and convergent validity for

the five measures of quality of life (QOL) were evaluated. While the SF-36, SG, and TTO sho

wed ceiling and floor effects, the WHOQOL-BREF and GR did not. Furthermore, the missing

values of WHOQOL-BREF, SF-36, SG, TTO, and GR were 1.1 to 8.6, 2.7 to 4.8, 3.8, 5.1, 6.0,

respectively. The Cronbach’s α coefficients of the WHOQOL-BREF and SF-36 domains rang

ed from 0.71 to 0.87, and from 0.74 to 0.98, respectively. The discriminant ability of the WHO

QOL-BREF was better than other QOL instruments. The relations between WHOQOL-BREF

and SF-36, SG, TTO, and GR were 0.36 to 0.76, 0.53 to 0.66, 0.20 to 0.35, and 0.17 to 0.33, r

espectively. We concluded that the WHOQOL-BREF is more suitable for SCI persons than ot

hers, and the conception in the WHOQOL-BREF, SF-36, and GR were different with that in t

he SG or TTO.