SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Using the satisfaction with life scale in people with Parkinson's disease: a validation study in different European countries.

ScientificWorldJournal · 2014-02-02

DOI: 10.1155/2014/680659PMID: 24672353

Open accessResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't; research-article; Validation Study; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

BackgroundOverall, people with chronic illnesses have lower life satisfaction compared to nonclinical populations. The objective of this international study was to examine the psychometric properties of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD).MethodsPD patients (n = 350) were recruited and interviewed at different specialized services in the United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Italy, and The Netherlands. A questionnaire set including a measure of life satisfaction, quality of life (QoL), self-reported health and disability status, and sociodemographic information was used. Acceptability, reliability, and validity were examined.ResultsThe internal consistency was good ( α = 0.81). The scale structure was satisfactory (comparative fit index = 0.99; root mean square error of approximation = 0.08). The SWLS was able to discriminate between healthy and unhealthy, disabled and nondisabled, and those perceiving a more severe impact of the disability on their lives. Concurrent validity using multiple linear regression models confirmed associations between SWLS and QoL and age.ConclusionsThis study is the first to report on the use of the SWLS in PD patients in different European countries. It is a useful tool in assessing satisfaction with life in PD patients through the continuum of care.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.