Validation of the Japanese version of the Quality of Life-Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults (QoL-AGHDA).

Growth hormone & IGF research : official journal of the Growth Hormone Research Society and the International IGF Research Society

PubMedID: 17081792

Suzukamo Y, Noguchi H, Takahashi N, Shimatsu A, Chihara K, Green J, Fukuhara S. Validation of the Japanese version of the Quality of Life-Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults (QoL-AGHDA). Growth Horm IGF Res. 2006;16(5-6):340-7.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate validity and reliability of the Japanese version of the Quality of Life-Assessment of Growth Hormone Deficiency in Adults (QoL-AGHDA).

DESIGN
Observational study; cross-sectional, longitudinal.

METHODS
Seventy-five adults with growth hormone deficiency completed the SF-36 (a generic health-related QOL scale) and the QoL-AGHDA before growth hormone replacement therapy and approximately 3 weeks later (when the therapy began). A sample (n=1000) of controls from the general population was also studied. We computed rates of missing data, measured reproducibility and internal consistency reliability, and tested for known-groups validity, concurrent validity, unidimensionality (by principle component analysis), and content validity.

RESULTS
Rates of missing data were low (0-1.4%). The mean of QoL-AGHDA scores in the patients was 8.2 (SD, 6.4). The scores were reproducible (k=0.41-0.78), and internally consistent (alpha=0.91) and the scale was unidimensional. QoL-AGHDA scores were associated with SF-36 scores as hypothesized. Scores were significantly higher in the patients than in controls (8.1+/-0.7, and 5.6+/-0.2, P<0.001). Discrimination between patients and controls was slightly better using scores on the "General Health" and "Role Physical" subscale of the SF-36 as explanatory variables than using QoL-AGHDA scores.

CONCLUSIONS
The QoL-AGHDA's reliability, validity, and rates of missing data were satisfactory, and the scale was confirmed to be unidimensional. However, because some subscales of the SF-36 were better for discriminating patients from controls, the content validity of the QoL-AGHDA may need to be re-evaluated.