The World Health Organization Quality of Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF) is predicated on a multidimensional perspective on quality of life (QOL); yet studies are unclear about the latent structure underlying responses. This article reports on a study conducted to investigate the structure of WHOQOL-BREF scores. Competing latent structures of the data were examined in a general population sample. In addition, the complete factorial invariance of the retained model was investigated across gender. We also investigated latent mean differences in the QOL dimensions over age as well as age by gender interactions effects. Based on responses to the WHOQOL-BREF, support was found for a bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling representation of the data. This measurement structure accounts for construct-relevant multidimensionality in item responses due to the presence of general and specific factors underlying the data and the fallibility of indictors as pure reflections of only the single constructs they are purported to measure. Furthermore, support was found for measurement and structural invariance across gender. Finally, evidence was obtained for a curvilinear relationship of age with QOL, characterized by a midlife nadir. Taken together, the results of the study yield important validation data for the WHOQOL-BREF and tentatively resolve the dimensionality issues in the measurement of QOL using this instrument.
Benitez-BorregoS.Guàrdia-OlmosJ.Urzúa-MoralesA. (2014). Factorial structural analysis of the Spanish version of WHOQOL-BREF: An exploratory structural equation model study. Quality of Life Research, 23, 2205-2212. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0663-2
4.
BrassenS.GamerM.PetersJ.GluthS.BüchelC. (2012). Don’t look back in anger! Responsiveness to missed chances in successful and nonsuccessful aging. Science, 336(6081), 612-614. doi:10.1126/science.1217516
5.
BrimO. G.KaganJ. (1980). Constancy and change in human development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
6.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834
7.
ChenF. F.WestS. G.SousaK. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189-225. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
8.
ChenW.-C.WangJ.-D.HwangJ.-S.ChenC.-C.WuC.-H.YaoG. (2009). Can the web-form WHOQOL-BREF be an alternative to the paper-form?Social Indicators Research, 94, 97-114. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9355-z
9.
ChengT. C.PowdthaveeN.OswaldA. J. (2015). Longitudinal evidence for a midlife nadir in human well-being: Results from four data sets. Economic Journal. Advance online publication. doi:10.1111/ecoj.12256
10.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-255. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
11.
FassioO.RolleroC.De PiccoliN. (2012). Health, quality of life and population density: A preliminary study on “contextualized” quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 110, 479-488. doi:10.1007/s11205-011-9940-4
12.
FreyB. S.StutzerA. (2002). Happiness and economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
FroneM. R.RussellM.CooperM. L. (1997). Relation of work-family conflict to health outcomes: A four-year longitudinal study of employed parents. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 70, 325-335. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8325.1997.tb00652.x
14.
FroneM. R.YardleyJ. K.MarkelK. S. (1997). Developing and testing an integrative model of the work–family interface. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 50, 145-167. doi:10.1006/jvbe.1996.1577
15.
HanK.-T.ParkE.-C.KimJ.-H.KimS. J.ParkS. (2014). Is marital status associated with quality of life?Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12(1), 1-10. doi:10.1186/s12955-014-0109-0
16.
HofmannS.WuJ.BoettcherH.SturmJ. (2014). Effect of pharmacotherapy for anxiety disorders on quality of life: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 23, 1141-1153. doi:10.1007/s11136-013-0573-8
17.
KirchengastS.HaslingerB. (2008). Gender differences in health-related quality of life among healthy aged and old-aged Austrians: Cross-sectional analysis. Gender Medicine, 5, 270-278. doi:10.1016/j.genm.2008.07.001
18.
KrägelohC.KerstenP.Rex BillingtonD.HsuP.-C.ShepherdD.LandonJ.FengX. (2013). Validation of the WHOQOL-BREF quality of life questionnaire for general use in New Zealand: Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research, 22, 1451-1457. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0265-9
19.
LeeS.-Y.SongX.-Y.SkevingtonS.HaoY.-T. (2005). Application of structural equation models to quality of life. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 12, 435-453. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1203_5
20.
LiK.KayN.NokkaewN. (2009). The performance of the World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF in assessing the quality of life of Thai college students. Social Indicators Research, 90, 489-501. doi:10.1007/s11205-008-9272-1
21.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 11, 320-341. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2
22.
MarshH. W.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.LüdtkeO.RobitzschA.MorinA. J. S.TrautweinU. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 439-476. doi:10.1080/10705510903008220
23.
McDonaldR. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of principal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 23, 1-21. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1970.tb00432.x
MorinA.MarshH.NagengastB. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 395-436). Charlotte, NC: IAP.
26.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.MarshH. W. (2015). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 23, 116-139. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.961800
27.
MorinA. J. S.ArensA. K.TranA.CaciH. (2015). Exploring sources of construct-relevant multidimensionality in psychiatric measurement: A tutorial and illustration using the Composite Scale of Morningness. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. Advance online publication. doi:10.1002/mpr.1485
28.
MroczekD. K.KolarzC. M. (1998). The effect of age on positive and negative affect: A developmental perspective on happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1333-1349.
29.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
PereraH. N. (2015a). Construct validity of the Social Provisions Scale: A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191115589344
32.
PereraH. N. (2015b). The internal structure of responses to the Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire–Short-Form: An exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 411-423. doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1014042
33.
PereraH. N.AthanasouJ. A. (2016). Construct validity of the EUROHIS-QOL for rehabilitation assessment. Australian Journal of Rehabilitation Counselling. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/jrc.2016.12
34.
PereraH. N.GangulyR. (2016). Construct validity of scores from the Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale in a sample of postsecondary students with sisabilities. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191116646444
35.
PereraH. N.McIlveenP.BurtonL. J.CorserD. M. (2015). Beyond congruence measures for the evaluation of personality factor structure replicability: An exploratory structural equation modeling approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 84, 23-29. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.01.004
36.
PerroneK. M.EgisdottirS.WebbK. L.BlalockR. H. (2006). Work-family interface: commitment, conflict, coping, and satisfaction. Journal of Career Development, 32, 286-300.
37.
QuintenC.CoensC.MauerM.ComteS.SprangersM. A. G.CleelandC.. . . BottomleyA. (2009). Baseline quality of life as a prognostic indicator of survival: A meta-analysis of individual patient data from EORTC clinical trials. Lancet Oncology, 10, 865-871. doi:10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70200-1
38.
ReiseS. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696. doi:10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
39.
ReiseS. P.MorizotJ.HaysR. (2007). The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research, 16, 19-31. doi:10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7
40.
RolleroC.GattinoS.De PiccoliN. (2014). A gender lens on quality of life: The role of sense of community, perceived social support, self-reported health and income. Social Indicators Research, 116, 887-898. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0316-9
41.
SkevingtonS. M. (2010). Qualities of life, educational level and human development: An international investigation of health. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45, 999-1009. doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0138-x
42.
SkevingtonS. M.LotfyM.O’ConnellK. A. (2004). The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment: Psychometric properties and results of the international field trial. A Report from the WHOQOL Group. Quality of Life Research, 13, 299-310. doi:10.1023/B:QURE.0000018486.91360.00
43.
SmithK. W.AvisN. E.AssmannS. F. (1999). Distinguishing between quality of life and health status in quality of life research: A meta-analysis. Quality of Life Research, 8, 447-459. doi:10.1023/a:1008928518577
44.
SnellD.SiegertR.SurgenorL.DunnJ.HooperG. (2016). Evaluating quality of life outcomes following joint replacement: Psychometric evaluation of a short form of the WHOQOL-Bref. Quality of Life Research, 25, 51-61. doi:10.1007/s11136-015-1044-1
45.
SuperD. E. (1980). A life-span, life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282-298. doi:10.1016/0001-8791(80)90056-1
46.
TartagliaS. (2013). Different predictors of quality of life in urban environment. Social Indicators Research, 113, 1045-1053. doi:10.1007/s11205-012-0126-5
47.
ThompsonH. M.ReisnerS. L.VanKimN.RaymondH. F. (2015). Quality-of-Life measurement: Assessing the WHOQOL-BREF scale in a sample of high-HIV-risk transgender women in San Francisco, California. International Journal of Transgenderism, 16, 36-48. doi:10.1080/15532739.2015.1039176
48.
TrompenaarsF.MasthoffE.Van HeckG.HodiamontP.De VriesJ. (2005). Content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-Bref in a population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients. Quality of Life Research, 14, 151-160. doi:10.1007/s11136-004-0787-x
49.
WangW.-C.YaoG.TsaiY.-J.WangJ.-D.HsiehC.-L. (2006). Validating, improving reliability, and estimating correlation of the four subscales in the WHOQOL-BREF using multidimensional Rasch analysis. Quality of Life Research, 15, 607-620. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-4365-7
50.
WeissA.KingJ. E.Inoue-MurayamaM.MatsuzawaT.OswaldA. J. (2012). Evidence for a midlife crisis in great apes consistent with the U-shape in human well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109, 19949-19952. doi:10.1073/pnas.1212592109
51.
WHOQOL Group. (1995). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Position paper from the World Health Organization. Social Science & Medicine, 41, 1403-1409. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(95)00112-K
52.
WHOQOL Group. (1998a). Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. Psychological Medicine, 28, 551-558.
53.
WHOQOL Group. (1998b). The World Health Organization quality of life assessment (WHOQOL): Development and general psychometric properties. Social Science & Medicine, 46, 1569-1585. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00009-4
54.
YaoG.WuC.-h. (2005). Factorial invariance of the WHOQOL-BREF among disease groups. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1881-1888. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-3867-7
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
