Research concerning the psychometric properties of the WHO Quality of Life Assessment Instrument (WHOQOL-100) in general populations of psychiatric outpatients has not been performed systematically.

To examine the content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-100 in a general population of Dutch adult psychiatric outpatients.

A total of 533 psychiatric outpatients entered the study (438 randomly selected, 85 internally referred). Participants completed self-administered questionnaires for measuring quality of life (WHOQOL-100), psychopathological symptoms (SCL-90), and perceived social support (PSSS). In addition, they underwent two semi-structured interviews in order to obtain Axis-I and Axis-II diagnoses, according to DSM-IV.

The drop-out percentage was low (7.1%). Of the 24 facets of the WHOQOL-100, 22 had a good distribution of scores, leaving out the facets physical environment and transport. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a four-factor structure, which was similar to earlier findings in patients with specific somatic diseases and depressive disorders. Various—a priori expected—positive and negative correlations were found between facets and domains of the WHOQOL-100, and dimensions of the SCL-90 and the PSSS-score, indicating good construct validity of the WHOQOL-100. The internal consistency of all facets and the four domains of the WHOQOL-100 was good (Cronbach’s alpha’s ranging from 0.62 to 0.93 and 0.64 to 0.84, respectively). Sparse and relatively low correlations were found between demographic characteristics (age and sex) and WHOQOL-100 scores.

Content validity, construct validity, and reliability of the WHOQOL-100 in a population of adult Dutch psychiatric outpatients are good. The WHOQOL-100 appears to be a suitable instrument for measuring quality of life in adult psychiatric outpatients.

The CAGE questionnaire is considered a useful screening and case-finding tool for alcohol use disorders in clinical populations. Our objectives were to validate the French version of the CAGE against DSM-IV criteria and to assess performance of each item of the scale.

Data were extracted from a hospital morbidity study conducted in central France. It concerned 5452 patients—48.5% men—in short and medium-stay units. Patients answered the CAGE questionnaire as a past-year assessment. The alcohol use disorders were diagnosed by the physicians using DSM-IV alcohol abuse or dependency criteria.

The CAGE questionnaire for a cut-off of 2 had a sensitivity of 77% and a specificity of 94%. The CAGE test was more sensitive for patients diagnosed as alcohol-dependent than for alcohol abusers (61% vs. 84%) with the same specificity (94%). These values are close to those for the English-language CAGE. The first three items (CAG) were very similar, with sensitivity 70% and specificity 94%. The eye-opening question (E) differentiated sharply between abuse and dependency, with sensitivities of 18% and 46%, respectively. A questionnaire comprising only the CAG questions of the CAGE had properties similar to the full questionnaire.

CAGE is a good screening tool for alcohol abuse or alcohol dependency. Given the frequent—and insufficiently diagnosed—alcohol problems among inpatients, CAGE is indicated as a first-line tool for screening for the most severe alcohol use disorders in hospital. It should ideally be used systematically. A positive reply to any of the first three items should alert the clinician and prompt further investigation.

The aim of this study was to examine the reliability of the Spanish version of Composite Scale of Morningness (CSM) and its ability to measure the circadian typology.

Voluntary and unpaid psychology students (N = 391; 132 men and 259 women), aged between 17 and 33, completed the questionnaire between the months of September and December.

The total score was independent of age and gender, with a close to normal distribution and a non-significant negative skewness. The internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.87) and factor analysis extracted three factors labeled Time of Retiring (items 2 and 7), Activity Planning (items 8, 9, and 13) and Morning Affect (items 3–6, and 10–12). With the 10th and 90th percentiles as cut-off scores, scorers below 22 (N = 40; 10.2%) are classified as evening-types and scorers above 39 as morning-types (N = 28; 7.2%).

The Spanish questionnaire shares most of the good psychometric properties of other versions of the CSM, and thus can be used for Spanish-speaking student samples. Nevertheless, further studies of normative data in workers and aged subjects are needed in order to validate CSM.

To compare three different kinds of health-related quality of life (HRQL) questionnaires available for use in patients suffering from schizophrenia: the SF-36 (a generic instrument), the QoLI (an instrument designed to a broad range of mental illnesses), the S-QoL (a questionnaire specific to schizophrenic patients), in terms of external validity and sensitivity to change.

Two hundred and five patients were included at D0 and one-third retested at D30. Socio-demographic data and clinical history were recorded, clinical evaluation comprised psychotic symptoms (PANSS), depression (Calgary depression scale for schizophrenia), global functioning (GAF), clinical severity (CGI), and extrapyramidal symptoms (ESRS). HRQL was assessed using the SF-36, the QoLI and the S-QoL.

A better agreement is observed between the SF-36 and the S-QoL than between the QoLI and the two other instruments. S-QoL and SF-36 are more strongly correlated with clinical status than QoLI. Compared to the SF-36 and the QoLI, the S-QoL better discriminates patients with comorbidity from others. The S-QoL shows better responsiveness than the QoLI and the SF-36.

For descriptive purpose, either generic tools like SF-36 or specific ones should be used, whereas when aiming at evaluating health treatment and care for schizophrenic patients, specific instruments like the S-QoL should be favoured.