This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
OBJECTIVE: The Cervantes Scale is a specific health-related quality of life questionnaire that was originally developed in Spanish to be used in Spain for women through and beyond menopause. It contains 31 items and is time-consuming. The aim of this study was to produce an abridged version with the same dimensional structure and with similar psychometric properties. METHODS: A representative sample of 516 postmenopausal women (mean [SD] age, 57 [4.31] y) seen in outpatient gynecology clinics and extracted from an observational cross-sectional study was used. Item analysis, internal consistency reliability, item-total and item-dimension correlations, and item correlation with the 12-item Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey Version 2.0 were studied. Dimensional and full-model confirmatory factor analyses were used to check structure stability. A threefold cross-validation method was used to obtain stable estimates by means of multigroup analysis. RESULTS: The scale was reduced to a 16-item version, the Cervantes Short-Form Scale, containing four main dimensions (Menopause and Health, Psychological, Sexuality, and Couple Relations), with the first dimension composed of three subdimensions (Vasomotor Symptoms, Health, and Aging). Goodness-of-fit statistics were better than those of the extended version (χ(2)/df = 2.493; adjusted goodness-of-fit index, 0.802; parsimony comparative fit index, 0.749; root mean standard error of approximation, 0.054). Internal consistency was good (Cronbach's α = 0.880). Correlations between the extended and the reduced dimensions were high and significant in all cases (P < 0.001; r values ranged from 0.90 for Sexuality to 0.969 for Vasomotor Symptoms). CONCLUSIONS: The Cervantes Scale can be reduced to a 16-item abridged version (Cervantes Short-Form Scale) that maintains the original dimensional structure and psychometric properties. At 51% of the original length, this version can be administered faster, making it especially suitable for routine medical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Coronado et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: