BioPsychoSocial Assessment Tools for the Elderly - Assessment Summary Sheet Test: McMaster Health Index Questionnaire (MHIQ) Year: 1976; revised 1984 Domain: Biological, Psychological, Social Assessment Tool Category: General Health, Quality of Life Variations/Translations: Canadian French translation available. Setting: Any Method of Delivery: Self-administration, in-person interview, or telephone interview Description: The MHIQ is designed to measure quality of life and health status in diverse populations by assessing physical, emotional, and social aspects of health. The questions are phrased in the present tense and are designed to measure health at the time of test administration; the MHIQ does not ask about change in health status over time. The MHIQ contains a total of 59 items (24 physical function, 25 social function, and 25 emotional function) (Bowling, 2005). Physical health aspects measured: physical activities, mobility, self-care, hearing and sight, and global physical function. Emotional health aspects measured: self-esteem, attitudes towards personal relationships, thoughts concerning the future, critical life events, and global emotional function. Social health aspects measured: general well-being, work role performance welfare, work role material welfare, social role performance welfare, social role material welfare, family support and participation, friends support and participation, and global social function (Chambers, 1993). Scoring/Interpretation: ‘Good function’ responses are given a score of 1 while ‘poor function’ responses are given a score of zero. Scores are then added for each of the three scales. Raw scores are standardized to give a score between 0 (extremely poor health) and 1 (extremely good health) (McDowell & Newell, 1996). Thus, a higher score indicates a better level of health. Alternate weighting schemes have been developed (Bowling, 2005). Time to Administer: 20 minutes (self-administration); 45-50 minutes (interview) Availability: Contact Dr. L.W. Chambers at the Elizabeth Bruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, for permission to use. Software: N/A Website: N/A Quantitative/Qualitative: Quantitative Validity (Quantitative): Validity was assessed in a variety of populations and studies through comparison to other global health measures, observed performance, clinical/biological indicators, and comparison of scores across patient groups. When compared to other widely-used global health measures, the MHIQ was found to correlate well (i.e., good convergent validity). A comparison between a group of psychiatry patients and a group of physiotherapy patients was also conducted. It was found that physiotherapy patients had significantly (p<0.01) lower physical health scores than psychiatry patients. Similarly, the patients in the psychiatry group were found to have significantly lower emotional health scores than physiotherapy patients (i.e., good clinical/biological validity) (Chambers, 1993). Sensitivity and specificity have been calculated and are reported to be 72% and 77%, respectively (Sackett et al., 1977). Reliability (Quantitative): Test/re-test reliability was found to be acceptable in various populations and for different modes of administration (Intraclass correlation coefficient: physical function 0.53, emotional function 0.70, social function 0.48) (Chambers, 1982). Inter-rater reliability was found to be high (Goodman-Kruskal Index of Agreement = 0.90, standard error of 0.05) (Chambers et al, 1976). References: Chambers, L.R. (1993). The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire: an update. In S. J. Walker & R. M. Rosser (Eds.), Quality of Life Assessment: Key Issues in the 1990s (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Springer. Chambers, L.W., MacDonald, L.A., Tugwell, P., Buchanan, W.W., & Kraag, G.(1982). The McMaster Health Index Questionnaire as a measure of quality of life for patients with rheumatoid disease. The Journal of Rheumatology, 9(5), 780-784. Chambers, L.W., Sackett, D.L., Goldsmith, C.H., Macpherson, A.S., & McAuley, R.G. (1976). Development and application of an index of social function. Health Services Research, 11(4), 430-41. Comments: N/A