Comparison of the Quality of Well-Being Scale and the MOS-HIV-34 Health Survey in HIV-infected patients.

Abstract

This research addressed the need to assess the validity of existing health-related quality of life instruments, by evaluating two such instruments: the Quality of Well-Being Scale and the MOS-HIV-34 Health Survey. One hundred adult male HIV-infected patients across six HIV disease classifications were used as subjects in San Diego, California. The research had three objectives: (1) to evaluate the convergent validity of the two health-related quality of life instruments using four surrogate criterion measures--CD4 levels, beta-2 microglobulin levels, disease classification, and age; (2) to reweight the four preference weights of the Quality of Well-Being Scale using a category rating method and comparing these preference weights currently in use; and (3) to evaluate the linearity of the preference weights currently in use and the preference weights derived in this research using functional measurement theory. It was found that the Quality of Well-Being Scale had greater convergent validity than the MOS-HIV-34 Health Survey. The preference weights currently in use for the Quality of Well-Being Scale dimensions did not differ from those derived in the HIV-infected sample, thus supporting the continued application of the weights now in use for weighting the Quality of Well-Being Scale in HIV-infected patients. The preference weights currently in use and those derived in this research were linear, a finding which supports the use of the Quality of Well-Being Scale in health care policy decision-making.