IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v9y2016i3d10.1007_s40271-015-0148-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale

Author

Listed:
  • Xue-Shan Bu

    (Sichuan University)

  • Jing Zhang

    (Sichuan University)

  • Yun-Xia Zuo

    (Sichuan University)

Abstract

Background The Quality of Recovery-15 scale (QoR-15) is an easy-to-use score for assessing the quality of post-operative recovery. Objectives The primary aim of the present study was to translate the QoR-15 into the Chinese language and validate it. The secondary aim was to compare it with the Post-operative Quality Recovery Scale (PQRS). Methods The Chinese version of the QoR-15 (QoR-15C) was developed according to the methods adopted by the International Quality of Life Assessment project. A total of 470 patients undergoing surgery and general anesthesia completed the QoR-15C and the PQRS before or on the day of surgery, and on post-operative days (POD)-1, -3, and -30. To validate the QoR-15C, we assessed validity, reliability, responsiveness, and clinical feasibility and compared them with those of the PQRS. Results Convergent validity showed the Pearson’s r coefficient of the QoR-15C with visual analog scale and the PQRS to be 0.63 and 0.10, respectively. Predictive validity showed it had significant correlations with duration of anesthesia, duration of operation, time in post-anesthesia care unit, time in intensive care unit, and length of hospital stay. Discriminant validity showed it differed between patients who had a good or poor recovery, and decreased with increasing grades (indicating difficulty and complexity) of surgery. The intraclass correlation coefficient, split-half coefficient, and Cronbach’s α were 0.99, 0.70, and 0.76, respectively. The standardized effect size ranged from 0.85 to 1.20, and the standardized response mean ranged from 0.93 to 1.27. Compared with the QoR-15C, the PQRS may have inferior convergent validity (0.36 vs. 0.63), and split-half reliability (0.63 vs. 0.70). Furthermore, the PQRS took longer to complete: 4.20 (standard deviation 0.79) versus 1.57 (standard deviation 0.65) min. Conclusions Similar to the original English version, the QoR-15C reveals satisfactory psychometric properties. Furthermore, it may be a more valid, reliable, and easy-to-use scale than the PQRS.

Suggested Citation

  • Xue-Shan Bu & Jing Zhang & Yun-Xia Zuo, 2016. "Validation of the Chinese Version of the Quality of Recovery-15 Score and Its Comparison with the Post-Operative Quality Recovery Scale," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 9(3), pages 251-259, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-015-0148-6
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-015-0148-6. 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.