Aims: In this study we evaluated indicators of the feasibility, reliability, and validity of the Child Health Questionnaire-Child Form (CHQ-CF). We compared the results in a subgroup of adolescents who completed the standard paper version of the CHQ-CF with the results in another subgroup of adolescents who completed an internet version, i.e., an online, web-based CHQ-CF questionnaire. Methods: Under supervision at school, 1,071 adolescents were randomized to complete the CHQ-CF and items on chronic conditions by a paper questionnaire or by an internet administered questionnaire. Results: The participation rate was 87%; age range 13-17 years. The internet administration resulted in fewer missing answers. All but one multi-item scale showed internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α > 0.70). All scales clearly discriminated between adolescents with no, a few, or many self-reported chronic conditions. The paper administration resulted in statistically significant, higher scores on 4 of 10 CHQ-CF scales compared with the internet administration (P < 0.05), but Cohen's effect sizes d were ≤ 0.21. Mode of administration interacted significantly with age (P < 0.05) on four CHQ-CF scales, but Cohen's effect sizes for these differences were also ≤ 0.21. Conclusion: This study supports the feasibility, internal consistency reliability of the scales, and construct validity of the CHQ-CF administered by either a paper questionnaire or online questionnaire. Given Cohen's suggested guidelines for the interpretation of effect sizes, i.e., 0.20-0.50 indicates a small effect, differences in CHQ-CF scale scores between paper and internet administration can be considered as negligible or small.

, , , , , , , , ,,
Quality of Life Research
Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam

Raat, H., Mangunkusumo, R., Landgraf, J., Kloek, G., & Brug, H. (2007). Feasibility, reliability, and validity of adolescent health status measurement by the Child Health Questionnaire Child Form (CHQ-CF): Internet administration compared with the standard paper version. Quality of Life Research, 16(4), 675–685. doi:10.1007/s11136-006-9157-1