Psychometric Properties of the SarQoL Questionnaire: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Sarcopenia and Quality of Life (SarQoL) questionnaire is recognized as the only disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for assessing sarcopenia-related HRQoL. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to provide a quantitative summary of all evidence reported on the reliability, validity, responsiveness and floor/ceiling effects of SarQoL in older adults. METHODS: Following PRISMA-COSMIN guidelines, a systematic search for studies evaluating the psychometric properties of SarQoL (i.e., reliability, validity, responsiveness and floor and ceiling effects) in older people was conducted on MEDLINE (via OVID), PsycINFO, Scopus and EMBASE. Studies published between 2013 and November 2024 using a consensual definition of sarcopenia were included. Study selection and data extraction were made by two independent reviewers. A random-effects model meta-analysis was applied. PROSPERO registration: CRD42024546880. RESULTS: From 411 studies identified by the search strategy, 25 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 4585 community-dwelling individuals, of which 1311 were diagnosed as sarcopenic. SarQoL demonstrated high reliability (pooled Cronbach's alpha values consistently exceeding 0.80) and excellent test-retest reliability (pooled ICC = 0.98). Construct validity was confirmed with strong convergent correlations (pooled r > 0.54) with related dimensions of generic SF-36 and EQ-5D and weaker divergent correlations (pooled r < 0.47). Responsiveness, evaluated in two studies using different methodologies, supported the ability of SarQoL to detect meaningful changes in HRQoL. The certainty of evidence was rated as high for reliability, validity and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis consolidates a decade of evidence and confirms the strong psychometric properties of SarQoL, with a high level of evidence.
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 | 0.010 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".