IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0216065.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change of the Sarcopenia Quality of Life (SarQoL) questionnaire: An analysis of subjects from 9 validation studies

Author

Listed:
  • Anton Geerinck
  • Vidmantas Alekna
  • Charlotte Beaudart
  • Ivan Bautmans
  • Cyrus Cooper
  • Fabiana De Souza Orlandi
  • Jerzy Konstantynowicz
  • Beatriz Montero-Errasquín
  • Eva Topinková
  • Maria Tsekoura
  • Jean-Yves Reginster
  • Olivier Bruyère

Abstract

Objectives: The Sarcopenia Quality of Life (SarQoL) questionnaire, a sarcopenia-specific patient-reported outcome measure, evaluates quality of life with 55 items. It produces 7 domain scores and 1 overall quality of life score, all between 0 and 100 points. This study aims to contribute to the interpretation of the SarQoL scores by calculating the standard error of measurement (SEM) and smallest detectable change (SDC) in a sample of subjects from 9 studies. Methods: Subjects from 9 studies (conducted in Belgium, Brazil, Czech Republic, England, Greece, Lithuania, Poland and Spain) were included. The SEM, a measure of the error in the scores that is not due to true changes, was calculated by dividing the standard deviation of the difference between test and retest scores (SDdiff) by √2. The SDC, defined as change beyond measurement error, was calculated by multiplying SDdiff by 1.96. Bland-Altman plots were assessed for the presence of systematic errors. Results: A total of 278 sarcopenic subjects, aged 77.67 ± 7.64 years and 61.5% women, were included. The SEM for the overall SarQoL score ranged from 0.18 to 4.20 points for the individual studies, and was 2.65 points when all subjects were analyzed together. The SDC for the overall score ranged from 0.49 to 11.65 points for the individual studies, and was 7.35 points for all subjects. The Bland-Altman plots revealed no systematic errors in the questionnaire. Conclusion: This study shows that, for individual subjects, a change in overall quality of life of at least 7.35 points (on a scale from 0 to 100) would have to be observed to confirm that a true change, beyond measurement error, has occurred. It also demonstrated that the SarQoL questionnaire is a precise instrument, with the observed scores within less than 3 points of the theoretical “true score”.

Suggested Citation

  • Anton Geerinck & Vidmantas Alekna & Charlotte Beaudart & Ivan Bautmans & Cyrus Cooper & Fabiana De Souza Orlandi & Jerzy Konstantynowicz & Beatriz Montero-Errasquín & Eva Topinková & Maria Tsekoura & , 2019. "Standard error of measurement and smallest detectable change of the Sarcopenia Quality of Life (SarQoL) questionnaire: An analysis of subjects from 9 validation studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(4), pages 1-13, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216065
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0216065
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216065
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0216065&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0216065?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0216065. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.