Revision and Validation of the Chinese Version of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire for ICU End-of-Life Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hospice care for end-of-life patients in the ICU should focus on quality of life. Currently, there are no specific quality-of-life measures for ICU end-of-life patients in China. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to revise and culturally adapt the Taiwanese version of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL-Taiwan) and to test its reliability and validity to provide an effective instrument for assessing the quality of life of ICU patients at the end of life. METHODS: The revision and cultural adaptation of the MQOL-Taiwan were performed to develop a Chinese version of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire for ICU end-of-life patients (MQOL-ICU). A total of 156 ICU doctors, 286 ICU nurses and 120 ICU family members of end-of-life patients were surveyed with the revised scale to evaluate the quality of life of ICU patients at the end of life. The content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency of the scale were measured after the revision. RESULTS: The Chinese version of the MQOL-ICU scale was formed based on the MQOL-Taiwan scale, which includes 8 items. For the Chinese version of the MQOL-ICU, the item-content validity index (I-CVI) ranged from 0.789 to 0.905, and the average scale-level content validity index (S-CVI/Ave) was 0.845. After exploratory factor analysis, the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) value was 0.700, and 3 dominant factors were extracted: physical and psychological symptoms, existential well-being, and support. In addition, 70.385% of the total variance was explained. The internal consistency (Cronbach's α) coefficient of the whole MQOL-ICU was 0.804, and the coefficients for the 3 domains ranged from 0.779 to 0.833. CONCLUSION: The Chinese version of the MQOL-ICU showed good reliability and validity, and it can be used to assess the quality of life of ICU patients at the end of life.
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 | 0.009 |
| 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".