2008
DOI: 10.1007/s11205-008-9326-4
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Similarities and Differences Among the Taiwan, China, and Hong-Kong Versions of the WHOQOL Questionnaire

Abstract: WHOQOL, Chinese versions, Culture,

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
2

Citation Types

0
34
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
3

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(34 citation statements)
references
References 37 publications
0
34
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This instrument was translated in several language and applied in many different countries (i.e. Bayram, Bilgel, & Bilgel, 2012;Li, Kay, & Nokkaew, 2009;Lucas-Carrasco, 2012;Yao, Wu, 2009). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This instrument was translated in several language and applied in many different countries (i.e. Bayram, Bilgel, & Bilgel, 2012;Li, Kay, & Nokkaew, 2009;Lucas-Carrasco, 2012;Yao, Wu, 2009). …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The average number of items selected was four, which is one item less than that for the New Zealand national items. The new WHOQOL Taiwan centre has selected 12 items from 20 national items proposed for the WHOQOL-100 [9], which together with the 12 items for the Hong Kong version [10] is by far the most national items selected.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Similar to the Taiwanese and Hong Kong versions [10], one such item asks about the respect received from other people. Another item ( Feelings of belonging ) that was assigned to the social relationships domain could be a reflection of the influence of collectivism of Māori culture [23] on the dominant individualistic British culture [24].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Social Indicators Research has also published several psychometric studies, establishing the validity of wellbeing instruments with Mainland Chinese samples (see e.g. Chen 2010; Chen and Davey 2009;Smyth et al 2010;Yao and Wu 2009;Ye et al 2014).…”
Section: Introduction and Overviewmentioning
confidence: 99%