Measuring the quality of life of people at the end of life: The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire–Revised
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire has been widely used with people with life-threatening illnesses without modification since its publication in 1996. With use, areas for improvement have emerged; therefore, various minor modifications were tested over time. AIM: To revise the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised) while maintaining or improving its psychometric properties and length, keeping it as close as possible to the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire to enable reasonable comparison with existing McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire literature. DESIGN: Data sets from eight studies were used (four studies originally used to develop the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire, two to develop new McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire versions, and two with unrelated purposes). The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised was developed using analyses of measurement invariance, confirmatory factor analysis, and calculation of correlations with the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire's global quality of life item. SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: Data were from 1702 people with life-threatening illnesses recruited from acute and palliative care units, palliative home care services, and oncology and HIV/AIDS outpatient clinics. RESULTS: The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised consists of 14 items (plus the global quality of life item). A new Physical subscale was created combining physical symptoms and physical well-being and a new item on physical functioning. The Existential subscale was reduced to four items. The revised Support subscale, renamed Social, focuses more on relationships. The Psychological subscale remains unchanged. Confirmatory factor analysis results provide support for the measurement structure of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised. The overall scale has good internal consistency reliability ( α = 0.94). CONCLUSION: The McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire-Revised improves on and can replace the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire since it contains improved wording, a somewhat expanded repertoire of concepts with fewer items, and a single subscale for the physical domain, while retaining good psychometric properties.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".