This article is free to access.
Background: The short version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life questionnaire (WHOQOL-BREF) is a popular instrument used to assess quality of life. The objective of this study was to evaluate the following psychometric properties: structural validity, convergent validity, internal consistency, and measurement invariance across sex of the WHOQOL-BREF in a sample of Ecuadorian adults. Methods: We used a sample of undergraduates (n = 987) to assess the WHOQOL-BREF original four-factor structure, a model with correlated factors, a hierarchical model, and two models resulting from the exploratory factor analysis and exploratory graph analysis. All the models were evaluated using confirmatory factor analysis. Results: The results of the exploratory factor analysis and exploratory graph analysis suggest that the items are organized into four factors, although differently from the original version and the orthogonality assumption is not maintained. The confirmatory factor analysis shows that the original WHOQOL-BREF structure with correlated factors presents adequate psychometric properties. However, we propose a four-factor structure that has the best psychometric properties and adequate internal consistency. The results of the measurement invariance show that strict and strong invariance is achieved between men and women. Convergent validity analysis reveals moderate correlations with self-esteem, resilience, and social support. Conclusions: Despite the original version of the WHOQOL-BREF with correlated factors has acceptable psychometric properties in the Ecuadorian context, we propose a version with a different organization of its items, which is consistent with the findings of other investigations.
Lima-Castro, S., Arias-Medina, P., Bueno-Pacheco, A., Peña-Contreras, E., Aguilar-Sizer, M., & Cabrera-Vélez, M. (2021). Factor structure, measurement invariance and psychometric properties of the Quality of Life Scale WHOQOL-BREF in the Ecuadorian context. Psicologia: Reflexao e Critica, 34(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41155-021-00194-9