TY - JOUR
T1 - Reliability and validity of a new living liver donor quality of life scale
AU - Morooka, Yuki
AU - Umeshita, Koji
AU - Taketomi, Akinobu
AU - Shirabe, Ken
AU - Maehara, Yoshihiko
AU - Yamamoto, Mayumi
AU - Shimamura, Tsuyoshi
AU - Oshita, Akihiko
AU - Kanno, Keiko
AU - Ohdan, Hideki
AU - Kawagishi, Naoki
AU - Satomi, Susumu
AU - Ogawa, Kaoru
AU - Hagiwara, Kuniko
AU - Nagano, Hiroaki
N1 - Funding Information:
This study received funding from Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research from the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (Grant-in-Aid for Young Scientists (B) Issue Number: 21792212).
PY - 2013/7
Y1 - 2013/7
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Liver transplantation
KW - Living liver donor
KW - Psychosomatic scale
KW - Quality of life
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84879252827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84879252827&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2
DO - 10.1007/s00595-012-0476-2
M3 - Article
C2 - 23325493
AN - SCOPUS:84879252827
VL - 43
SP - 732
EP - 740
JO - Surgery Today
JF - Surgery Today
SN - 0941-1291
IS - 7
ER -