WHOQOL-BREF for Keith Torkelson December 2024 by Keith Torkelson MS

 WHOQOL-BREF for Keith Torkelson December 2024 by Keith Torkelson MS

Feature Photo

In Memory of Theodore “Ted” Francis

Died Too Young - 2024

Abstract – Executive Summary

For the purpose of this paper we apply our Binary Scoring Method.  In addition, we address features that make an assessment Easy to Score.  This material is about Keith “Buster” Torkelson.  On WED August 8, 2018 Buster self-scored 60.8 (Good) on his WHOQOL-BREF (26).  For this assessment Higher Scores are Favorable (HSF).  On TH October 31, 2024 Buster self-scored 51.5 (Good) on his WHOQOL-BREF (26).  The MAX score is 80.  On F November 22, 2024 Buster self-scored 58.3% (HSF) for his Sleep and QOL Impact Score (S&QOL-IS).  Last we address Quality of Life (QOL) baselines for 2011 and 2012.

Requirements & Specifications

 

Title	WHOQOL-BREF for Keith Torkelson December 2024 by Keith Torkelson MS
Author	Keith “Buster” Torkelson MS
Featured	Self-Assessment - Keith Edward Torkelson
Rating	All Ages
Sources	Dedicated Work Flash Drive & Internet
Blog	Housing Advisory
Date Published	December 16, 2024 (M)
Queries	“keith torkelson” “sleep” “qol”
Nature (Format)	Heavy on Tables
Assignment	History and lived experience “that deserves to be remembered”
Purpose	Digital Preservation of Real World Evidence Self-assessment

Last Reviewed: 20241216-M:

Source for WHOQOL BREF Assessment
http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/en/english_whoqol.pdf
The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL)-BREF
© World Health Organization 2004 (26 Items)
U.S. Version, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 1997

Introduction - Scoring

TSM=Their (WHO) Scoring Method (1-5)

BSM=Our Binary Scoring Method (0.0-1.0)

Associated Document

07_Scoring_MSG_Binary_Method_20120602_Notes V2024

20171212 - Assessment Scoring

We routinely apply a few types of scoring methods.  We describe them as: Binary, Stars, and Percentiles. 

Matrix – Rubric for MSG Binary Scoring

 

Nature	Range	Best	QUAL
Binary	0.00 | 0.50 | 1.00	1.00	No | SoSo | Yes SoSo Options 0.25 – 0.75 PRN E.g. 0.33 & 0.67
Stars	0.0 – 5.0	5.0	Example Compare with CMS Stars Scores E.g. Imperial at 2.5
Percentile	000.0 – 100.0	100.0	[%] Inter-assessment comparisons and migrations (Portability) Fidelity with Education Standards

Last Updated: 20210108-F:

Also > Binary Scoring Method (BSM)

P-Pass (1.0) | So-So (0.5) | F-Fail (0.0)

Special Topic – Deciding on a QOL Assessment

So you have decided to assess for your Quality of Life (QOL).  We found about six QOL assessments while researching online.  Anything with fifteen or less questions (items) we call a Screener.  For this report we selected the World Health Organization’s QOL BREF.  The WHOQOL BREF has 26 questions or items.  In its original form, the WHOQOL BREF, we consider it moderately difficult to score.  After choosing it we took it for a test run.  It meets our needs and is fitting for this paper.  For the most part the WHOQOL BREF has positive polarity that translates as High Scores are Favorable (HSF). 

Transformation & Weighting

We decided to transform it to all positive polarity.  We also use our Binary Scoring Method (BSM).  We created an Excel Spreadsheet to score as part of the author’s methods.  It is a given that assessments should be quantifiable.  The WHOQOL BREF only slightly weights items.  They do this by repeating a theme for a question.  We have found that Satisfaction with Sleep, Rest, and Peace (& Quiet) constitutes over 25% of Buster’s QOL.  The WHOQOL BREF does not weigh these items the way lived experience shall delineate them.

20160205: Easy Score Protocol (ESP)

We here at Mentalation Solutions Group (MSG) have been working on our Easy Score Protocol or ESP for over two (2) years.  The Easy Score Protocol recommends several features about an assessment that permits the client (consumer) to manage many if not all features about an assessment (consumer-driven).  ESP can: Cut down on the time a helper is needed, reduce “survey fatigue”, and deliver more comprehensive results.  We are now introducing MSG ESP Version 20160205 to follow up on ESP 20140816.  Any teacher in their right mind tries to balance ease of grading with comprehensiveness and quality of their assessments.  Here MSG introduces the Easy Score Protocol or ESP (MSG-ESP-v20160205).  The ESP is a development of TheDAG (Developing and Growing) working with MSG.

History

Since our first collision with written health assessments back at the turn of the millennium (2000), we have reviewed and worked over more than fifty (50) assessment tools.  We found that assessments fall on a continuum: Easy to score (Grade A) to near impossible to score (Grade F).  To demonstrate ESP is to analyze one or more Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) assessments that are commonly being applied in health and human services.  Here we address the World Health Organizations Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF).

Table - Method - Criteria (Specifications) to Qualify as an Easy Score

ESP = Easy Score Protocol

#	ESP Feature
01	Basic Arithmetic
02	Binary Option
03	Complete Minimal Assessment Materials
04	Computer Driven Scoring (*)
05	Consistent Polarity – No Reverse Questions
06	For Institutions Use Scantron Method
07	Interpretation Included
08	Limited Number of Items
09	No Misleading Open-ended Questions
10	No Trick Questions
11	Number Every Item – No Lumping
12	Numbered Questions
13	Numerical Answer/Choices
14	Others - Added as Identified

Last Updated: 20241207-SA: Table of Results for: MSG-ESP-V20160205 - We first fleshed out our MSG Easy Score Protocol on August 16^th, 2014. 

 

Need (*) - The needs with regard to handwritten instruments differ a bit from those needs with regard to online instruments.

Table - Assessment Specifications

The Original Assessment (WHOQOL BREF-26 Item)

Requirement	Specification(s)
Assessment Name	World Health Organization BREF (WHO-QOL BREF-26)
Number of Items	26
Nature	Commercial-Off-The-Shelf (COTS) Paper and Electronic
Easy Score Protocol Grade	Docked for Reverse questions Docked for multiple scales Docked for complex scoring algorithm (26 Item) Grade B Tool
Results / Interpretation	As follows
Assessment Links	Mixed about in this document
Completeness	Paper version does not have interpretation information

Sources:

http://www.who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/en/english_whoqol.pdf

The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL)-BREF © World Health Organization 2004 (26 Item)

Their Scoring Method (TSM)

Their data requires a second transformation to get from 125 MAX to a value in the table below.

Table – Transformed Score

Our BSM Fraction * 80 (Transformed Score MAX)

Transformed Score (HSF)	Interpretation
0-20	The QOL is poor or Poor QOL
21-40	QOL is moderate
41-60	QOL is good
61-80	QOL is very good

Assessment Feedback

The strengths of the assessment are its’ length and content. The weaknesses are mixed scoring including reverse scoring. We improved the assessment by using our Binary Scoring Method (BSM).  The versions of the WHOQOL-BREF-26 we accessed online provide no feedback or interpretation. We periodically provide feedback about the WHOQOL-BREF-26. No feedback is incorporated into the assessment designs we worked with. Overall we like the WHOQOL-BREF.

Table - Results Up Front

WHOQOL-BREF (26) Calculations and Scores

Element	2018 0808 W RT-BSM	2024 1031 TH RT-BSM
Part I	=4.50/06	=3.00/06
Part II	=6.75/09	=4.75/09
Part III	=8.75/11	=6.00/11
CALC Total DIV #	=20.00/26	=16.75/26
Satisfaction with QOL =	76.0%	64.4%
Transformation CALC	=0.760*80	=0.644*80
Interpretation (HSF)	60.8 (Good)	51.5 (Good)

RT = Real Time
TSM = Their Scoring Method
BSM = Our Binary Scoring Method
HSF = High Scores are Favorable

WHOQOL-BREF

The following questions ask how you feel about your quality of life, health, or other areas of your life. Please keep in mind your standards, hopes, pleasures and concerns.  We ask that you think about your life in the last two weeks.  Please read each question and circle the number on the scale for each question that gives the best answer for you. If you are unsure about which response to give to a question, the first response you think of is often the best one.

 

Table - Part I

##	Statement	2018 0808-W RT-BSM	2018 0808-W RT-TSM	2024 1031-TH RT-BSM
1	How would you rate your quality of life? (Parity Check)	1.00	4.5	0.50
2	How satisfied are you with your health?	0.50	4.0	0.50
	The following questions ask about how much you have experienced certain things in the last two weeks.
3	To what extent do you feel that physical pain prevents you from doing what you need to do? (Reverse)	0.50	3.0	0.75
4	How much do you need any medical treatment to function in your daily life? (Reverse)	0.50	3.0	0.00
5	How much do you enjoy life?	1.00	4.5	0.50
6	To what extent do you feel your life to be meaningful?	1.00	5.0	0.75
	Carry	=4.50/6	=24.00/30	=3.00/6

Last Reviewed: 20241114-TH:

TSM = 5.0 MAX
RT = Real Time
TSM = Their Standard Method
BSM = Our Binary Scoring Method

20241031-TH - Question 1 – Parity Check

51.5% V 50.0%

Our Quick Score Method (QSM) yields 50.0% where the score for the whole WHOQOL-BREF is 51.5%.  That’s close enough for government work.
Table - Part II

 

##	Statement	2018 0808-W RT-BSM	2018 0808-W RT-TSM	2024 1031-TH RT-BSM
7	How well are you able to concentrate?	0.25	2.0	0.25
8	How safe do you feel in your daily life?	0.75	3.0	0.25
9	How healthy is your physical environment?	0.50	3.0	0.50
	The following questions ask about how completely you experience or were able to do certain things in the last two weeks.
10	Do you have enough energy for everyday life?	0.50	4.5	0.50
11	Are you able to accept your bodily appearance?	1.00	5.0	0.75
12	Have you enough money to meet your needs?	1.00	4.5	0.75
13	How available to you is the information that you need in your day-to-day life?	0.75	5.0	0.75
14	To what extent do you have the opportunity for leisure activities?	1.00	5.0	0.25
15 (9)	How well are you able to get around?	1.00	4.5	0.75
	Carry	=6.75/9	=36.5/45	=4.75/9

Last Reviewed: 20241114-TH:

TSM = 5.0 MAX
RT = Real Time
TSM = Their Standard Method
BSM = Our Binary Scoring Method

Table - Part III

##	Statement	2018 0808-W RT-BSM	2018 0808-W RT-TSM	2024 1031-TH RT-BSM
16	How satisfied are you with your sleep?	0.50	1.5	0.75
17	How satisfied are you with your ability to perform your daily living activities?	1.00	5.0	0.50
18	How satisfied are you with your capacity for work?	1.00	4.5	0.50
19	How satisfied are you with yourself?	0.75	4.5	0.75
20	How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?	1.00	4.5	0.75
21	How satisfied are you with your sex life?	0.75	4.0	0.00
22	How satisfied are you with the support you get from your friends?	0.75	4.0	0.75
23	How satisfied are you with the conditions of your living place?	0.50	3.0	0.50
24	How satisfied are you with your access to health services?	0.75	4.5	0.50
25	How satisfied are you with your transport?	1.00	5.0	0.75
	The following question refers to how often you have felt or experienced certain things in the last two weeks.
26 (11)	How often do you have negative feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety, and/or depression? (Reverse)	0.75	1.5	0.25
	Carry	=8.75/11	=42.0/55	=6.00/11

Last Reviewed: 20241114-TH:

BSM = Our Binary Scoring Method
RT = Real Time
TSM = 5.0 MAX
TSM = Their Standard Method

Metrics - Their Scoring Method

Scoring Scales

[1] Very Poor -  Poor – Neither poor nor good – Good – [5] Very Good

[1] Very dissatisfied – Dissatisfied – Neither – Satisfied – [5] V Satisfied

[5] Not at all – A little – A moderate amount – Very Much – [1] An extreme amount

[1] Not at all – A little – A moderate amount – Very much – [5] Extremely

[1] Not at all – A little – Moderately – Mostly – [5] Completely

[5] Never – Seldom – Quite often – Very often – [1] Always

Define Metric

Metric might be defined as (technical) “a system or standard of measurement”.

Table - Quality Of Life Related Assessments - Elimination List
Deciding on a QOL Assessment
Results - Research
Discovery Timeline

Time Stamp Term	Measure	Description / Meaning
2011	WHOQOL-BREF (*)	World Health Organization QOL Brief – 26 Item
2012	BNDQOL	Brand New Day QOL – 15 Item
2014	ProQOL	Professional QOL
2014	HOS	Health Outcomes Survey (CMS/NCQA/SPH)
2015	CPS	Consumer Perception Scale (Survey) (TAC)
2016	RENHEW	Rest, Exercise, Nutrition, Health, Education & Welfare
2017	DHCS QOL	Department of Health Care Services QOL
2018	CIBHS Housing Quality QOL	California Institute for Behavioral Health Solutions QOL
2019	MHSUDS	Mental Health & Substance Use Disorder Services
2020	Y-QOL	Youth QOL
2023	PEP QOL	Premature Ejaculation Profile
2024	SEAQOL Materials	Seattle Quality of Life Group
2024	S&QOL (*)	Sleep and QOL

WHOQOL–BREF Description

Measures

Physical functioning, Mental health, Social functioning, and Environment.

The World Health Organization Quality of Life-Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF) is a self-report questionnaire that assesses quality of life (QoL) in four domains: physical health, psychological health, social relationships, and environment.

The WHOQOL-BREF is a shortened version of the WHOQOL-100, which has 100 items. The WHOQOL-BREF also includes two items that measure general health and overall QoL.

(*) – Addressed Here in this Report

Back Story

Back in 2009 we were interviewed by Team Pavich (Anthony P & Keith E) of the Orange County Health Care Agency (OCHCA) for a position on the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) Innovations Advisory Committee (IAC).  At the time the MHSA Innovations Component had not been rolled out.  Thus Kate Pavich asked us to sit on and contribute about the MHSA Technological Needs Technology Advisory Committee (TAC).  Late in 2011 we were asked to sit and contribute about the new IAC.  We were assigned several assessments to vet for ferreting out a standardized set of assessment tools to be applied on MHSA Innovations Projects.  One of these assessments was the Commercial-of-the-shelf World Health Organization Quality of Life – BREF (WHOQOL-BREF). 

Special Topic – Sleep and QOL

Sleep and QOL are considered near the end of this report.

Associated Document

05_DA_Sleep_QOL_Assessment_23012101_Notes V2024

Table - Sleep and QOL Impact Score (S&QOL-IS)
QOL in Context Sleep
Special Topic - Sleep Profile for Keith “Buster” Torkelson
High scores are favorable (HSF)

Assessment	2024 1122 (F)
SF-36	=5.25/09
WHOQOL–BREF	=2.75/04
Nottingham Health Profile	=3.75/07
Sickness Impact Profile	=7.00/12
Functional Limitations Profile (FLP)	=7.00/12
Quality of Well-Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA)	=1.75/03
EuroQol Instrument / EQ5-D	=2.75/05
Health Utility Index-HUI	=7.00/11
Ferrans and Powers Health	=2.50/04
Functional Outcomes of Sleep Questionnaire (FOSQ)	=2.50/06
Sleep Apnea Quality Of Life Index (SAQLI)	=4.25/05
Oriented Severity Index (OS APOSI)	=3.00/06
CALC	=49.00/84
Sleep and QOL Impact Score (S&QOL-IS) (HSF) =	58.3%

Table – S&QOL-IS – Interpretation

%	Interpretation	Note
0-20	Seriously problematic	No sleep for more than 40 hours
21-40	Poor	Sleep interfered with for 72 hours
41-60	Moderate	“Buster’s” 58.3%: Actually better off than score indicates
61-80	Above average	Getting 80% of the sleep you need
81-100	Asset	Routinely getting all the sleep you need

The World Health Organization 

Quality Of Life (WHOQOL) – BREF (26 Items)

Included Here

WHOQOL: Measuring Quality of Life

WHO [World Health Organization] defines Quality of Life as an individual's perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards and concerns.

FYI – Links

WHOQOL Tools

https://www.who.int/tools/whoqol

WHOQOL-BREF

https://www.who.int/tools/whoqol/whoqol-bref

WHOQOL Policy

https://www.who.int/tools/whoqol/whoqol-bref/docs/default-source/publishing-policies/whoqol-bref/english_whoqol_bref

FYI - Table – Definitions

Term	Definition
Goal	A goal is a desired outcome that a person or group of people plan and commit to achieve. Goals are often long-term and are typically broad statements, rather than a step-by-step process.
Expectation	The act or state of expecting : a looking forward to or waiting for something or chances of good or bad fortune —usually used in plural
Standard	A level of quality or attainment or an idea or thing used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.
Concern	A feeling of worry or anxiety, or a matter of interest or importance

Discussion

What makes for a complete assessment tool?

Below is a sampling of what makes a complete assessment tool, instrument, scale, etc.

Table – Complete Assessment Tool Criteria

Requirement	Specification
A complete assessment, also called	“Comprehensive” about  a theme being assessed
Combines	Data sources and assessment types
Critical areas	No critical area is overlooked
Current Doctor values (*)	The doctor, e.g. psychiatrist, values the assessment
Easy scoring	Avoids changing polarity and reverse scoring Either strengths based or deficits based
Free	Assessment is free for consumers of behavioral health services
Hardcopy	Hardcopy is available usually in PDF format
Holistic picture	…of a subject by examining all relevant aspects
Includes strengths and weaknesses	Evaluates strengths or weaknesses (**)
Link stays active online	Over time the links do not break
Scores reported back	For online assessments in particular, scores are reported back to consumer with interpretation (***)
Variety of methods	Incorporates a variety of methods to gather information from multiple perspectives (****)

FYI

https://www.edutopia.org/blog/comprehensive-assessment-action-5-keys-andrew-miller

From Above	Note
*	It can be hard to get your doctor to buy into your self-assessment and self-assessing
**	In pedagogy we evaluate both strengths and weaknesses in the same assessment
***	Online assessments should not be temporary
****	In Health & Human Services assessments should stay with one method

Results - Comparison

Table – Baseline Quality of Life

Using WHOQOL-BREF (26 Items) V2004 & Brand New Day QOL (BND-QOL)

Consumer = Keith Torkelson MS

 

Time Stamp	Description	WHOQOL-BREF	GBDP-QOL AKA BND-QOL
20120629-Ret	For Comparison	2011 Retro 77.7%	2011 Retro 64.4%
20120629	For Comparison	2012 42.3%	2012 55.6%
20180808-W	RT-BSM	2018 RT 76.9%	2018 RT 87.8%
20180808-W	RT-TSM	2018 RT 78.8%

 

BND = Brand New Day
BND-BL = Brand New Day Baseline
BSM = Our Scoring Method (0.0-1.0)
GBDP = Graduate by Death Program
Ret = Retroactive
RT = Real Time
TSM = Their Scoring Method (1-5)

 

https://ktork46.blogspot.com/2016/02/msg-gb-death-program-chapter-03c.html 

https://ktork46.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-gb-death-program-chapter-03b-health.html

https://ktork46.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-gb-death-program-chapter-03a.html

https://ktork46.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-gb-death-program-chapter-02-primary.html

https://ktork46.blogspot.com/2015/07/a-story-of-thejg-and-gb-death-program.html

 Up Next – On Deck

QOL alternative to WHOQOL-BREF (26 Items)
BNDQOL (15 Items)
Tx_Measure_BND_QOL_16030901_Scorer 20180808-W
Tx_Measure_BND_QOL_14010603_Scorer 2012
Tx_Measure_BND_QOL_14010603_Scorer Gaps 2011
Tx_Measure_WHOQOL_12062901_Scorer 2011 and 2012

Metadata QOL