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

Xue-Shan Bu, Jing Zhang and Yun-Xia Zuo ()
Additional contact information
Xue-Shan Bu: Sichuan University
Jing Zhang: Sichuan University
Yun-Xia Zuo: Sichuan University

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, 2016, vol. 9, issue 3, No 7, 259 pages

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2016
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6 Abstract (text/html)
Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:spr:patien:v:9:y:2016:i:3:d:10.1007_s40271-015-0148-6

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/40271

DOI: 10.1007/s40271-015-0148-6

Access Statistics for this article

The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research is currently edited by Christopher I. Carswell

More articles in The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research from Springer, International Academy of Health Preference Research
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Sonal Shukla () and Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing ().