Validity, Reliability, and Insights from Applying the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire to People Living with Parkinson's Disease (MQoL-PD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing quality-of-life instruments for Parkinson's disease (PD) may not fully assess quality of life (QoL) for people with PD in a holistic and multidimensional manner. This study examines the subscale structure, validity, and internal-consistency reliability of the McGill Quality of Life (MQoL) Questionnaire in a sample of people with PD. This cross-sectional study evaluates the MQoL-PD by using Cronbach's alpha and principal components analysis. A total of 81 consenting people with PD from a tertiary care outpatient clinic were studied. Scores were tabulated for the motor Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (mUPDRS), the Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), the Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire (PDQ-39), the MQoL Single-Item Scale (MQoL-SIS), and the MQoL Questionnaire (MQoL). Cronbach's alpha for the MQoL-PD was: physical symptoms, 0.83; psychological symptoms, 0.59; and existential/support symptoms, 0.76. Important contributors to QoL in PD include mobility, bowel and bladder function, fatigue, and pain. The MQoL Questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of physical, psychological, and existential/support symptoms for people with PD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".