Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

The KIDSCREEN-27 scale: translation and validation study of the Slovenian version

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes volume 20, Article number: 67 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There are many methods available for measuring social support and quality of life (QoL) of adolescents, of these, the KIDSCREEN tools are most widely used. Thus, we aimed to translate and validate the KIDSCREEN-27 scale for the usage among adolescents aged between 10 and 19 years old in Slovenia.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted among 2852 adolescents in primary and secondary school from November 2019 to January 2020 in Slovenia. 6-steps method of validation was used to test psychometric properties of the KIDSCREEN-27 scale. We checked descriptive statistics, performed a Mokken scale analysis, parametric item response theory, factor analysis, classical test theory and total (sub)scale scores.

Results

All five subscales of the KIDSCREEN-27 formed a unidimensional scale with good homogeneity and reliability. The confirmatory factor analysis showed poor fit in user model versus baseline model metrics (CFI = 0.847; TLI = 0.862) and good fit in root mean square error (RMSEA = 0.072; p(χ2) < 0.001). A scale reliability was calculated using Cronbach's α (0.93), beta (0.86), G6 (0.95) and omega (0.93).

Conclusions

The questionnaire showed average psychometric properties and can be used among adolescents in Slovenia to find out about their quality of life. Further research is needed to explore why fit in user model metrics is poor.

Background

Adolescence is the time between the ages of 10 and 19 when individuals have specific health and developmental needs [1]. The transition from childhood to adulthood often presents a challenging period with decline in emotional and mental well-being [2]. Thus, factors that influence emotional development of adolescents, such as personality changes, physical growth, and social and cognitive developments, must be taken into account [3]. Mental disorders often appear in this time, influencing later life. Investments in adolescents' mental well-being will bring great benefits in the following years and decades [4]. Adolescence provides an opportunity to develop positive mental health and wellbeing, and potentially reduce the costs of in health care caused by mental health disorders in adulthood [5].

Mental well-being compromises positive effects, evaluations of life, and absence of negative effects [6]. Many young people are facing everyday stress due to various stressors. Guo et al. [7] found that factors correlated to mental health are gender, physical activity, family economy, siblings, stress, satisfaction of self-appearance, quality of sleep, social trust, willingness to learn, as well as teachers and parent support. Adolescents spend many hours a day in school; thus, the school climate is of utmost importance for establishing mental well-being. Lester and Cross [8] found that factors like feeling safe, having a good connection to school and receiving peer support are protective factors of mental well-being, while connectedness to teachers is protective factor of mental well-being over the transition from primary to secondary school. Yet, Arabiat et al. [9] in their research in Jordan found that the parents' support is more important than school, and peer support is important for maintaining well-being in adolescence.

Social support is derived from family members, friends, and community, and is closely related to student's quality of life [10]. Social support is a protective factor to stress and contribute to one's well-being [11]. There is evidence that social support perception differs among gender, where female students receive more support from friends than from peers, family, and teachers. Male students receive less support from all sources [12]. Williams et al. [13] stated that social support requires the existence of social relationships with their structure, strength and type. Greater social support is linked to better health related quality of life among adolescents [14]. Moreover, lower social support for adolescents may contribute to emotional distress and internet addiction [15].

There are many methods available for measuring social support and quality of life (QoL) of adolescents, of these, the KIDSCREEN tools are most widely used [16, 17]. The KIDSCREEN-27 is a particularly useful instrument because it is easy to understand and use and because of the available volume of data for further comparisons. As the scale is widely used, it enables international comparison [18]. The KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire is an instrument widely used for monitoring the quality of life of children and adolescents and relations with others. However, authors discussed issues with factor structure and item composition. Shannon et al. [19] used the scale among Irish children of low socio-economic status and reported that 5-factor model was an unacceptable fit. The modified 7-factor model was supported. Jervaeus et al. [20] reported acceptable goodness-of-fit values in 23 of 27 items. Also, the explained variance within each dimension was above the set criterion for all dimensions except Autonomy & Parent Relations. On the other hand, the scale achieved good levels of reproducibility, internal consistency, discriminatory power and construct validity among Brasilian adolescents [21]. The validation is a rigorous process and crucial for research in the field of health, social, and behavioural sciences. Scale evaluation can be onerous and is often unfamiliar to researchers because of the lack of graduate training on scale development and validation [22]. The COSMIN taxonomy suggested that for assessing measurement properties the following items must be tested: reliability, construct and content validity, reliability, measurement error and responsiveness [23]. Thus, factor analysis (structural validity) and Cronbach α (internal consistency) are not enough to perform psychometric analysis which will provide meaningful results [24]. Recently, advanced, and more user-friendly software-R has been developed that offers numerous packages for psychometric testing [25]. Researchers now have a program that ensures transparent and reproducible data. Yet, for beginners, writing script in R can be complicated and take much time, thus available scripts such as script by Dima [24] are highly welcome.

The aim of this study was the translation and validation of the KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire which was used for measuring social support and quality of life of the school-aged adolescents in Slovenia following the 6-step psychometrics protocol in R.

Methods

Design

We conducted a cross-sectional study among adolescents from November 2019 to January 2020 in 16 primary and 9 secondary schools in Slovenia.

The instrument

The KIDSCREEN questionnaire is available in three versions; the original long version consists of 52 items covering ten dimensions of QoL, a 27-item version covering 5 dimensions of QoL, and a 10-item index version [26]. The KIDSCREEN-27 measures five Rasch scaled dimensions: 1) physical well-being, 2) psychological well-being, 3) autonomy and parent relation, 4) peers and social support, and 5) school environments. The questionnaire was funded by the European Commission and developed within a European project "Screening and Promotion for Health-related Quality of Life in Children and Adolescents—A European Public Health Perspective" [27,28,29]. Each item was scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 meaning "not at all" to 5 meaning "very much". Certain items (1, 9, 10 and 11) were reversed when scoring the questionnaire. Reverse scoring means that the numerical scoring scale runs in the opposite direction. The total KIDSCREEN score was calculated by summing up all the responses. Higher scores of KIDSCREEN indicated better QoL and social support. Before using the questionnaire, the prior permission to use was sought from the authors.

Sample

According to the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia [30] and the Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia [31] there were 454 primary and 182 secondary schools in Slovenia at the time of planning this project. We used random sampling based on which the expected sample included all available students from 22 primary schools (5% of all elementary schools) and 12 secondary schools (5% of all secondary schools) in Slovenia. Random sampling was performed using online Research Randomizer site. The required sample was calculated on the basis of data from the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia [30], where it is evident that there were 176,898 enrolled students in elementary school and 74,021 in secondary school in school year 2016/2017. The envisaged final number of participants involved was determined by the size of the total population of students, degree of confidence and margin of error [32], which amounted to 384 students. The sample size was increased to avoid the risk of attrition and drop out during the study. Students who are under 10 years old and older than 19 years and those who are not included in the education system were excluded. Survey questionnaires were distributed to 3860 students in primary and 3107 students from secondary schools who consent to participation in the classroom where the classes took place.

The study was conducted in 16 primary and 9 secondary schools in different regions of Slovenia. Out of 6967 distributed questionnaires a total of 2972 were completed and returned which represents a response rate of 42.66%. A total of 1489 (50.10%) adolescents from the primary and 1483 (49.90%) from the secondary schools participated in the survey. Research involved primary school (from the 6th to the 9th grade) and secondary school students (from the 1st to the 4th grade). They were between 11 and 19 years old. Other characteristics of the sample are shown in the Table 1.

Table 1 Sample characteristics
Full size table

The mean age among students in primary school was 12.2 (SD = 1.5) and 16.4 (SD = 1.3) among students in secondary school. Primary and secondary school students most frequently answered that they live with mother (PS: 1343, 90.7%; SS: 1369, 91.9%) or father (PS: 1204, 81.4%; SS: 1205, 80.9%). Students who answered “other” (PS: 48, 3.2%; SS: 55, 3.7%) described that they live either with godfather/godmother, great-grandfather/ great-grandmother, uncle/aunt, nephew, cousin, guardian, foster father/foster mother, stepfather/stepmother, or alone.

Procedure

Data collection took place in the second half of 2019. We used a validated questionnaire KIDSCREEN-27 [33] to collect information on the perception of adolescents on support from family, friends, and teachers. Certain items (1, 9, 10 and 11) were reversed when scoring the questionnaire. The total KIDSCREEN score was calculated by summing up all the responses. Higher scores of KIDSCREEN indicated better QoL. The questionnaire was translated into Slovene following recommended guidelines [34]. The translation process included: (a) translation from English to Slovene by two independent native speakers of whom one knew about the instruments and concept under investigation and the other did not; (b) comparison of translated versions and (c) reaching a consensus; (d) back translation into the original language by two native speakers blind to the original version of the questionnaires; (e) comparison of a translated version and original version and (f) reaching a consensus among the involved translators.

The chosen institutions were contacted and approval for conducting the research was sought. On the agreed days, the questionnaires were distributed and collected. The data collection was performed in their classrooms by the teachers. The adolescents completed the questionnaires in a written (printed) version. It took approximately 20 min to complete the questionnaire.

The results of the research were analyzed using the programming language for statistical analysis R v 3.6.1. thus ensuring the reproducibility of the research that is often overlooked in nursing research.

Analysis

The collected questionnaires were analyzed using the statistical program R [25]. A 6-step protocol for conducting psychometric analysis for detecting scale properties was used [21]. The basic descriptive statistics and plotting are often overshadowed by advanced methods. To prevent this, item-level descriptives were analyzed to detect outliers, out-of-range values, missing values, reverse-coded items, and item variations [21].

Examination of score distributions for further planned analyses was performed. Item properties were investigated via non-parametric and parametric item response theory (IRT). IRT is a psychometric theory of measurement that demonstrated reliability and validity of measurement [35]. A Mokken scale analysis (MSA) was performed to examine the homogeneity of items in the scale. MSA is a scaling technique used for ordinal data in scaling tests and questionnaires. It consists of two steps: (1) a selection algorithm that partitions a set of ordinal variables into scales (Mokken scales) and (2) methods to investigate assumptions of nonparametric IRT models [36]. Coefficients of homogeneity (H) for items in each subscale were calculated using mokken package [36]. Moreover, Automatic Item Selection Procedure (AISP) function from the Mokken package was used to explore possible dimensionality solutions at increasing thresholds [37].

The parametric IRT model can be used for further diagnosis of unidimensional scales fit for binary (Rasch model) or ordinal items (Rating scale model). In this study the Rating scale model as implemented in the eRm package [38] was used to calculate item-based characteristics. More specifically, the fit of actual responses and their logistic function was measured. According to Bond and Fox [39] the fit can be measured by putting more weight to responses from participants whose ability levels are closer to the item's difficulty level (infit) or putting more weight to extreme scorers (outfit). Item fit statistics (infit and outfit) indicate the model deviation. The mean squares of item fit should stay in the 0.5–1.5 range [40]. Additional to unidimensional IRT calculations, we also performed confirmatory Multidimensional IRT (MIRT) calculations at the item level using five factors of KIDSCREEN-27. The mirt package by Chalmers [41] was used to calculate corresponding RMSEA values.

Then the scale structure was explored using explanatory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), scale reliability using a classical test theory (CTT), and calculation and description of global scores. Factor analysis is a multivariate statistical procedure that reduces a large number of variables into a smaller set of variables (factors). It establishes dimensions between measured variables and latent constructs, and it provides construct validity evidence [42]. Factor analysis was conducted using package Psych [43] and Lavaan [44], which include various factor analysis options.

In the process of conducting CFA, different estimation methods were used: the root mean square error of approximation—RMSEA [45], comparative fit index—CFI [46], and Tucker–Lewis index—TLI [47, 48]. RMSEA is widely used as an absolute fit index that assesses properties of hypothesized model and compares it to a perfect model. CFI and TLI are incremental fit indices that compare the fit of a hypothesized model with that of a baseline model [49]. Parallel analysis method (PA) [50] and the Minimum Average Partial (MAP) [51] were considered when interpreting the data. PA is often used to determine the number of components to keep in a principal component analysis or factors to keep in an exploratory factor analysis. Moreover, MAP is used to determine the number of components, which focuses on the common variance in a correlation matrix. Very simple structure (VSS) was also considered as an alternative procedure for estimation of the optimal number of factors [52]. The sample size Bayesian information criterion (SABIC) was chosen as a model selection method [53]. CTT was conducted to test reliability for the item (sub)sets using Cronbach's α [54, 55] and other reliability indices such as ω, β, and Guttman's lambda 6—G6 [24, 56]. Dunn et al. [57] stated that calculating coefficient alpha is not enough to say that the measurement is reliable, thus they proposed calculation confidence intervals (CIs) by a method called bootstrapping, which involves repeated resampling with sample replacements to obtain an empirical distribution of an estimator [58]. Dima [24] also proposed calculation of omega, which makes more realistic assumptions than Cronbach's α alone.

Ethics

Prior to the research, ethical approval was obtained from the Slovenian National Medical Ethics Committee (no. 0120-313/2019/13). Headmasters of schools were contacted and sought for the permission to carry out the research. Participants invited to the study were informed orally and in written form about the purpose of the research, instructions for compliance, confidentiality, anonymity, and volunteering, and the possibility of withdrawing from participation in any research phase. We informed them about the fact that we will use the obtained results exclusively for the purpose of the research. We adhered to the principles of the Helsinki Declaration on Biomedical Research in Human Beings [59], the Oviedo Convention [60], the Convention on the Rights of the Child [61], the Personal Data Protection Act [62], and of the Council and the principles of the Code of Medical Deontology of Slovenia [63]. Ethical principles of the Code of ethics in nursing and healthcare of Slovenia [64] were also considered and applied. Adolescents needed additional parental consent to participate in the study [65]. Additional information about the study were provided for students and parents. The contact information was also provided; thus, parent did have an opportunity to ask additional questions about the study. Both students younger than 16 years and parents signed the consent form. We store the consents to participate in the survey and survey questionnaires in locked rooms [66].

Results

All 6 steps of psychometric testing are displayed in the following text.

Step 1: Descriptive statistics

Firstly, response frequencies were checked for all items to show if items have sufficient variation to respondents. A minimum score for KIDSCREEN-27 was 30 and maximum 135. The mean value was 101.46 (SD = 18.43).

Secondly, subscales correlations were calculated to examine the power of mutual connections between subscales (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Correlation between KIDSCREEN-27 subscales

Full size image

There are no negative correlations nor outliers between items in the KIDSCREEN-27 subscales. Based on the statistical parameters and graphical data presentation, the KIDSCREEN-27 is constructed of five subscales.

Step 2: Mokken scale analysis

The scale is homogeneous (H ≥ 0.40) for all five subscales in KIDSCREEN-27 (Table 2).

Table 2 Homogeneity coefficients for subscales of KIDSCREEN-27
Full size table

All items in KIDSCREEN-27 form a single scale at different homogeneity levels. The subscale physical well-being is unidimensional at the homogeneity level of 0.35, psychological well-being at 0.45, autonomy and parent relation at 0.55, peers and social support at 0.55, and school environment at 0.50 (Additional file 1).

Step 3: Parametric item response theory (IRT)

A fit diagnosis was performed with the Rating scale model. Items infit and outfit present the extent to which responses fit logistic function for each item (Table 3).

Table 3 The mean square of item fit values
Full size table

The KIDSCREEN-27 subscales have range of infit between 0.540 and 1.061, and outfit between 0.545 and 1.101. Additional to unidimensional IRT calculations, we also performed confirmatory multidimensional MIRT calculations at the item level using five factors. The itemfit RMSEA levels ranged between 0.011 and 0.027.

Step 4: Factor analysis

Conducted parallel analysis based on tetrachoric correlations suggested usage of 8 factors and 6 components for the KIDSCREEN-27 scale (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

Parallel analysis scree plot

Full size image

Our results from the VSS analysis point to the optimal number of two factors, but both Velicer MAP and SABIC suggest a 5-factor structure (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Very simple structure plot

Full size image

The CFA showed poor fit according to user model versus baseline model metrics (CFI = 0.847; TLI = 0.862) and good fit in root mean square error-based metric (RMSEA = 0.072; p(χ2) < 0.001).

Step 5: Classical test theory (CTT)

In the step 5, a reliability for the KIDSCREEN-27 and sub-sets was calculated using Cronbach's α, beta, G6 lambda and omega (Table 4).

Table 4 Classical test theory values for KIDSCREEN-27 and subscales
Full size table

Step 6: Total (sub)scale scores

In the final step, data distribution was checked. Data in all subscales shows acceptable distribution (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Data distribution of KIDSCREEN-27 scale

Full size image

Summary statistics were calculated and are shown in Table 5. There were no outliers detected and all parameters show expected scores.

Table 5 Summary statistics
Full size table

The Slovenian versions of the KIDSCREEN-27 scale achieved good validity, reliability, and psychometric properties.

Discussion

The KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire is instrument for monitoring QoL of children and adolescents to provide clarity on which factors from a wider social environment may contribute to children's or adolescents' mental well-being [19, 67]. The KIDSCREEN-27 was the first instrument for children that was tested in several countries [17,18,19, 28, 67,68,69,70,71,72,73,74,75,76] and in a large representative and multinational sample of children and adolescents in 13 countries (Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The Netherlands, and the United Kingdom) [77]. To our knowledge, this is the first published validation of the KIDSCREEN-27 among adolescents in Slovenia. The conducted analyses show that the Slovene version of the questionnaire has overall average psychometric properties for the use among adolescents. The questionnaire was translated following all the steps of the translation process. The questionnaire was than analyzed following a 6-step analysis in R: descriptive, non-parametric IRT, parametric IRT, factor analysis, classical test theory and total scores) [24].

According to the analysis, MSA identified one item that did not meet the criteria for ordinal scaling. The physical well-being subscale does not form a unidimensional scale at H ≥ 0.40. Fit diagnosis was performed using the Rating scale model. The KIDSCREEN-27 subscales have range of infit between 0.540 and 1.061, and outfit between 0.545 and 1.101. Similar results are reported by Vélez et al. [17]. Parallel analysis suggested 8 factors and 6 components, but both Velicer MAP and SABIC suggest a five-factor structure. The CFA showed average fit in the user model versus baseline model metrics (CFI = 0.847; TLI = 0.862) and good fit in root mean square error (RMSEA = 0.072; p(χ2) < 0.001). This might be since KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire already measures QoL. CFA results of KIDSCREEN-27 among adolescents in Turkey [73] showed similar results (RMSEA = 0.07; CFI = 0.96). Poor results (RMSEA = 0.10; CFI = 0.91) were also reported in a study conducted among Chinese adolescents [72]. Another study suggested a modified 7-factor model, which is better at explaining the data than the original 5-factor model [19]. Ng et al. [72] agreed with a 7-factor model. However, studies conducted among 13 European countries and one conducted among Chilean adolescents [77] have found a 5-factor model acceptable. Since many studies show a variable number of underlying factors in different environments, usually resulting in a number of factors higher than five, one of the reasons for this might be related to the fact that the scale includes reversed items. As noted in a recent study by Zeng et al. [78], this might contribute to reduced internal consistency and change the factor structure of the scale.

The reliability and internal consistency of the KIDSCREEN-27 were calculated using Cronbach's α, beta, G6 and omega. Cronbach's α was 0.93 and is interpreted as acceptable [79,80,81]. Ng et al. [70] also reported acceptable internal consistency (0.84–0.89). Similar results were reported in a study among Turkish adolescents where Cronbach's α ranged between 0.78 and 0.84 [73]. They also reported that the dimension self-perception has lower Cronbach's α value (0.69), which confirms the results of Serbian (0.58) [70] and Iranian (0.60) [71] studies. In another study conducted among Irish children [19] Cronbach's α was below the recommended limit. Values of each subscale ranged from 0.56 to 0.74. Values in our study ranged from 0.78 to 0.93. Internal consistency was also evaluated using beta (0.86), lambda G6 (0.95) and omega (0.93), which other studies did not perform. Thus, additional comparisons cannot be performed.

Although our study was conducted following rigorous psychometric analysis and among large student sample, there are some limitations that are worth noting. The test–retest reliability was not conducted, because data was collected in a certain time frame. Moreover, the KIDSCREEN-27 is a self-reported questionnaire measuring social support, meaning that participants may give socially desirable answers. Thus, findings should be interpreted with caution. Although all invited schools had the same study protocol, most of them did not involve all students who are enrolled at their school. There may be a gap in how were students selected. Thus, due to a large sample of schools included in the study the authors of the study did not have the information on the strategies used to approach the students in the participating schools. Future studies are needed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the KIDSCREEN-27 scale and its clinimetric sensitivity and validity. Carrozzino et al. [82] recommended the Clinimetrics and its Clinimetric Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (CLIPROM) criteria which represent a step forward to the validation process of rating scales and daily clinical practice with patients.

Conclusion

Overall, KIDSCREEN-27 is a valid and reliable questionnaire for measuring QoL of adolescents and the wider social factors that influence adolescents' mental well-being. The confirmatory factor analysis showed poor fit in user model versus baseline model metrics and good fit in root mean square error. This might be the consequence of having several latent variables in KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire that are measuring different aspects of the QoL. The findings from this study add to the international understanding of the KIDSCREEN-27 scale and support the use of the Slovene translation of the scale. Although, scale underwent a rigorous process of psychometric testing following a 6-step analysis in R there are possibilities for improvements. A longitudinal design of a similar study would allow the observation of the temporal complexity in the KIDSCREEN-27 questionnaire results. Also, other study limitations should be considered when performing similar research.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are not publicly available but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. World Health Organization. 2019. Maternal, newborn, child and adolescent health. Retrieved July 1, 2019, from https://www.who.int/maternal_child_adolescent/topics/adolescence/development/en/

  2. Bluth K, Campo RA, Futch WS, Gaylord SA. Age and gender differences in the associations of self-compassion and emotional well-being in a large adolescent sample. J Youth Adolesc. 2017;46(4):840–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0567-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ronen T, Hamama L, Rosenbaum M, Mishely-Yarlap A. Subjective well-being in adolescence: the role of self-control, social support, age, gender, and familial crisis. J Happiness Stud. 2016;17(1):81–104. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9585-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Patton GC, Sawyer SM, Santelli JS, Ross DA, Afifi R, Allen NB, Kakuma R. Our future: a Lancet commission on adolescent health and wellbeing. The Lancet. 2016;387(10036):2423–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(16)00579-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. World Health Organization. 2018. Adolescents mental health. Retrieved July 1, 2019, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/adolescent-mental-health

  6. Black L, Panayiotou M, Humphrey N. The dimensionality and latent structure of mental health difficulties and wellbeing in early adolescence. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(2): e0213018. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0213018.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Guo C, Tomson G, Keller C, Söderqvist F. Prevalence and correlates of positive mental health in Chinese adolescents. BMC Public Health. 2018;18(1):263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5133-2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Lester L, Cross D. The relationship between school climate and mental and emotional wellbeing over the transition from primary to secondary school. Psychol Well-being. 2015;5(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13612-015-0037-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Arabiat DH, Shaheen A, Nassar O, Saleh M, Mansour A. Social and health determinants of adolescents’ wellbeing in Jordan: implications for policy and practice. J Pediatr Nurs. 2018;39:55–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedn.2017.03.015.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Alsubaie MM, Stain HJ, Webster LAD, Wadman R. The role of sources of social support on depression and quality of life for university students. Int J Adolesc Youth. 2019;24(4):484–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673843.2019.1568887.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lopez-Zafra E, Ramos-Álvarez MM, El Ghoudani K, Luque-Reca O, Augusto-Landa JM, Zarhbouch B, Pulido-Martos M. Social support and emotional intelligence as protective resources for well-being in moroccan adolescents. Front Psychol. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01529.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Malecki CK, Demaray MK. Social support as a buffer in the relationship between socioeconomic status and academic performance. Sch Psychol Q. 2006;21(4):375–95. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0084129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Williams P, Barclay L, Schmied V. Defining social support in context: a necessary step in improving research, intervention, and practice. Qual Health Res. 2004;14(7):942–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732304266997.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Vettore MV, Ahmad SF, Machuca C, Fontanini H. Socio-economic status, social support, social network, dental status, and oral health reported outcomes in adolescents. Eur J Oral Sci. 2019;127(2):139–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/eos.12605.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Karaer Y, Akdemir D. Parenting styles, perceived social support and emotion regulation in adolescents with internet addiction. Compr Psychiatry. 2019;92:22–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2019.03.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. The KIDSCREEN Group. 2010. KIDSCREEN-27. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://www.kidscreen.org/cms/es/node/104

  17. Vélez CM, Lugo-Agudelo LH, Hernández-Herrera GN, García-García HI. Colombian Rasch validation of KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2016;14(1):67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0472-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Andersen JR, Natvig GK, Haraldstad K, Skrede T, Aadland E, Resaland GK. Is the Kidscreen-27 a valid measure of health-related quality of life in 10-year-old Norwegian children? PeerJ PrePrints. 2015;3:1134v1. https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.1134v1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Shannon S, Breslin G, Fitzpatrick B, Hanna D, Brennan D. Testing the psychometric properties of Kidscreen-27 with Irish children of low socio-economic status. Qual Life Res. 2017;26(4):1081–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1432-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Jervaeus A, Kottorp A, Wettergren L. Psychometric properties of KIDSCREEN-27 among childhood cancer survivors and age matched peers: a Rasch analysis. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. da Silveira PM, da Silva Bandeira A, Lopes MVV, Borgatto AF, da Silva KS. Psychometric analysis of the Brazilian-version Kidscreen-27 questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2021;19(1):1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-021-01824-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, De Vet HC. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19(4):539–49. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9606-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Dima AL. Scale validation in applied health research: tutorial for a 6-step R-based psychometrics protocol. Health Psychol Behav Med. 2018;6(1):136–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/21642850.2018.1472602.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria;2007.

  26. Ravens-Sieberer U, Herdman M, Devine J, Otto C, Bullinger M, Rose M, Klasen F. The European KIDSCREEN approach to measure quality of life and well-being in children: development, current application, and future advances. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(3):791–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0428-3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. The KIDSCREEN Group. KIDSCREEN instruments: Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire for Children and Young People 2004. Retrieved July 18, 2019, from https://www.kidscreen.org/english/questionnaires/

  28. Ravens-Sieberer U, Auquier P, Erhart M, Gosch A, Rajmil L, Bruil J, Mazur J. The KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life measure for children and adolescents: psychometric results from a cross-cultural survey in 13 European countries. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(8):1347–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9240-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. 2018. SURS. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Dem_soc/09_izobrazevanje/04_osnovnosol_izobraz/01_09527_zac_sol_leta/01_09527_zac_sol_leta.asp

  30. Ministry of Education, Science and Sport of the Republic of Slovenia. 2018. Direktorat za srednje in višje šolstvo ter izobraževanje odraslih. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from http://www.mizs.gov.si/si/delovna_podrocja/direktorat_za_srednje_in_visje_solstvo_ter_izobrazevanje_odraslih/

  31. Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia. 2017. STATOPIS: statistični pregled Slovenije 2017. Retrieved July 25, 2018, from https://www.stat.si/StatWeb/File/DocSysFile/9743

  32. Qualtrics. 2018. Calculating Sample Size. Retrieved September 13, 2018, from https://www.qualtrics.com/blog/calculating-sample-size/

  33. Ravens-Sieberer U, et al. KIDSCREEN-52 quality-of-life measure for children and adolescents. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2005;5(3):353–64. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.5.3.353.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Sperber AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology. 2004;126:S124–8. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2003.10.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Rizopoulos D. Item response theory in R using Package ltm. Department of Statistics and Mathematics: WU Wirtschaftsuniversitat Wien; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Van der Ark LA. Mokken scale analysis in R. J Stat Softw. 2007;20(11):1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Hemker BT, Sijtsma K, Molenaar IW. Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous Mokken IRT model. Appl Psychol Meas. 1995;19(4):337–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169501900404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Mair P, Hatzinger R. Extended Rasch modeling: the eRm package for the application of IRT models in R. J Stat Softw. 2007. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v020.i09.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Bond T, Yan Z, Heene M. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. Abingdon: Routledge; 2020.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  40. Boone W, Rogan J. Rigour in quantitative analysis: the promise of Rasch analysis techniques. Afr J Res Math Sci Technol Educ. 2005;9(1):25–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10288457.2005.10740574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chalmers RP. mirt: a multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Williams B, Onsman A, Brown T. Exploratory factor analysis: a five-step guide for novices. Austr J Paramed. 2010. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Revelle, W. 2017. Psych: procedures for psychological, psychometric, and personality research. Retrieved August 4, 2021, from https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych

  44. Rosseel Y. Lavaan: an R package for structural equation modeling and more. Version 0.5–12 (BETA). J Stat Softw. 2012;48(2):1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Steiger JH. Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivar Behav Res. 1990;25(2):173–80. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bentler PM, Bonett DG. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychol Bull. 1980;88(3):588. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.88.3.588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Tucker LR, Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1973;38(1):1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02291170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Xia Y, Yang Y. RMSEA, CFI, and TLI in structural equation modeling with ordered categorical data: the story they tell depends on the estimation methods. Behav Res Methods. 2019;51(1):409–28. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-1055-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Horn JL. A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1965;30(2):179–85. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Velicer WF. Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika. 1976;41(3):321–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Revelle W, Rocklin T. Very simple structure: an alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivar Behav Res. 1979;14(4):403–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr1404_2.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Sclove SL. Application of model-selection criteria to some problems in multivariate analysis. Psychometrika. 1987;52(3):333–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Cronbach LJ, Shavelson RJ. My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64(3):391–418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404266386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Revelle W, Zinbarg RE. Coefficients alpha, beta, omega, and the glb: comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika. 2009;74(1):145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: a practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014;105(3):399–412. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. DiCiccio TJ, Efron B. Bootstrap confidence intervals. Statistical science 1996;189–212.

  59. World Medical Association. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA. 2013;310(20):2191–4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Council of Europe. 1997. Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity on the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: Convention on human rights and biomedicine. Oviedo: Council of Europe.

  61. United Nations General Assembly. Convention on the rights of the child, 20 November 1989, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577. New York: United Nations; 1989. p. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Personal Data Protection Act. Official Gazette of the RS, no. 86/04.

  63. Code of Medical Deontology of Slovenia. (1992). Ljubljana: Medical Chamber of Slovenia.

  64. Code of ethics in nursing and healthcare of Slovenia. Official Gazette of the RS, no. 71/14.

  65. Harris J, Porcellato L. Opt-out parental consent in online surveys: ethical considerations. J Empir Res Hum Res Ethics. 2018;13(3):223–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1556264618766953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Royal College of Nursing. Research ethics: RCN guidance for nurses. London: The Royal College of Nursing; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Robitail S, Ravens-Sieberer U, Simeoni MC, Rajmil L, Bruil J, Power M, Czimbalmos A. Testing the structural and cross-cultural validity of the KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2007;16(8):1335–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9241-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Quintero CA, Lugo LH, García HI, Sánchez A. Validation of questionnaire KIDSCREEN-27 to measure health related quality of life in children and adolescents of medellin. Colombia: Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría; 2011. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0034-7450(14)60141-4.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  69. Pardo-Guijarro MJ, Woll B, Moya-Martínez P, Martínez-Andrés M, Cortés-Ramírez EE, Martínez-Vizcaíno V. Validity and reliability of the Spanish sign language version of the KIDSCREEN-27 health-related quality of life questionnaire for use in deaf children and adolescents. Gac Sanit. 2013;27(4):318–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2012.11.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  70. Stevanovic D, Tadic I, Novakovic T, Kisic-Tepavcevic D, Ravens-Sieberer U. Evaluating the Serbian version of the KIDSCREEN quality-of-life questionnaires: reliability, validity, and agreement between children’s and parents’ ratings. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(7):1729–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0286-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Parizi AS, Garmaroudi G, Fazel M, Omidvari S, Azin SA, Montazeri A, Jafarpour S. Psychometric properties of KIDSCREEN health-related quality of life questionnaire in Iranian adolescents. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(7):2133–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0655-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Ng JY, Burnett A, Ha AS, Sum KW. Psychometric properties of the Chinese (Cantonese) versions of the KIDSCREEN health-related quality of life questionnaire. Qual Life Res. 2015;24(10):2415–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-0973-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Baydur H, Ergin D, Gerçeklioğlu G, Eser E. Reliability and validity study of the KIDSCREEN Health-Related Quality of Life Questionnaire in a Turkish child/adolescent population. Anatolian J Psychiatry. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.214559.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Farias Júnior JCD, Loch MR, Lima Neto AJD, Sales JM, Ferreira FELDL. Reproducibility, internal consistency, and construct validity of KIDSCREEN-27 in Brazilian adolescents. Cad Saude Publica. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311x00131116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Vrkić A. Tjelesna aktivnost i kvaliteta života studentica završnih godina učiteljskog fakulteta (Master thesis). Zagreb: University of Zagreb. Faculty of Teacher Education. Chair of Kinesiology Education; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Power R, Akhter R, Muhit M, Wadud S, Heanoy E, Karim T, Khandaker G. Cross-cultural validation of the Bengali version KIDSCREEN-27 quality of life questionnaire. BMC Pediatr. 2019;19(1):19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-018-1373-7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Molina TG, Montaño RE, González EA, Sepúlveda RP, Hidalgo-Rasmussen C, Martínez VN, George ML. Psychometric properties of the quality of life questionnaire health related KIDSCREEN-27 in Chilean adolescents. Rev Med Chil. 2014;142(11):1415–21. https://doi.org/10.4067/s0034-98872014001100008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  78. Zeng B, Wen H, Zhang J. How does the valence of wording affect features of a scale? The method effects in the Undergraduate Learning Burnout Scale. Frontiers in Psychology, 2020;2638.

  79. Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theory 3E. Tata McGraw-hill education 1994.

  80. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ. 1997;314(7080):572. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  81. DeVellis RF. Scale development: theory and applications. Sage Publications 2016.

  82. Carrozzino D, Patierno C, Guidi J, Montiel CB, Cao J, Charlson ME, Fava GA. Clinimetric criteria for patient-reported outcome measures. Psychother Psychosom. 2021;90(4):222–32. https://doi.org/10.1159/000516599.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank all students who participated in this study

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Maribor, Zitna ulica 15, 2000, Maribor, Slovenia

    Leona Cilar Budler, Majda Pajnkihar & Gregor Stiglic

  2. Center for Psychosocial Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg – Eppendorf, Martinistrasse 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

    Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer

  3. School of Nursing, Ulster University, Northland Road, Londonderry, BT48 7JL, UK

    Owen Barr

Authors
  1. Leona Cilar Budler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Majda Pajnkihar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ulrike Ravens-Sieberer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Owen Barr
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregor Stiglic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LCB: Conceptualization, Writing- Original draft preparation, Methodology, Investigation, Analyses MP: Conceptualization, Writing-Reviewing and Editing, Supervision URS: Writing- Reviewing and Editing OB: Writing- Reviewing and Editing, Supervision GS: Data Visualization, Software, Investigation, Supervision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Leona Cilar Budler.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Prior to the research, ethical approval was obtained from the Slovenian National Medical Ethics Committee (No. 0120-313/2019/13).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1

. Supplement 1: Mokken Scaling for KIDSCREEN subscales items.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visithttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Budler, L.C., Pajnkihar, M., Ravens-Sieberer, U. et al. The KIDSCREEN-27 scale: translation and validation study of the Slovenian version. Health Qual Life Outcomes 20, 67 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01973-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-022-01973-3

Keywords

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

ISSN: 1477-7525

Contact us