Sistency was determined by PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20182574 using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. The following were estimated: item-total correlation; total alpha value; and alpha value of each item. Scores greater than 0.8 are desirable, and greater than 0.90, excellent.16 To reject the null hypothesis, the significance level of p 0.05 (5 ) was adopted. The 95 confidence intervals were calculated. Similarly to the previous version, we assumed that the quality of life of the patients studied has a parametric distribution, thus the normality test was not used.14 Regarding the characteristics of AF, 47.5 of the patients had persistent AF, and 52.5 , get IC87201 permanent AF. Regarding the time elapsed since diagnosis, 35 had the disease for up to one year, 40 had it from one to five years, and 25 , for more than five years. Regarding risk classification, most patients were CHADS1 and 2 (67.5 and 22.5 , respectively). The mean left atrial size was 41.4 1.2 mm. Regarding therapy, 52.5 had already undergone electrical cardioversion, and 10 had undergone catheter ablation. When asked about knowledge of the disease, 25 reported none (Table 1). The new version of the AFQLQ maintained the same structure and metric of the original (appendix). Similar to the original, the AFQLQ v.2 remained easy to apply and to understand. This information originated from the assessment of the focal group during the development of version 2. The AFQLQ v.2 score system remained objective, simple and fast. An individualized score for each domain was maintained, as was a total/global value for the addition of the values found in each domain. Table 2 shows the reproducibility assessment of AFQLQ v.2, correlating the scores of the initial application with those of the test-retest after 15 days. Inter- and intraobserver reproducibilities can be demonstrated by utilizing accurate coefficients ( 0.90) in the analysis of the total score of AFQLQ v.2. The Bartko ICC was greater than 0.95 for the total score of AFQLQ v.2, implying high accuracy. The ICC of the domains `fatigue’, `well-being’ and `illness perception’ had values greater than 0.85 for the reproducibility analysis. Similarly to the original version, which showed excellent internal consistency for reproducibility, 14 the internal consistency of the new version also showed highly reliable results of agreement: Cronbach’s alpha > 0.82. The itemby-item assessment showed correlation greater than 0.75 between the total result of the test and the domain `wellbeing’ (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.76). Similar results were found for the domains `fatigue’ and `illness perception’, with Cronbach’s alphas of 0.78 and 0.79, respectively (Table 3).ResultsOf the patients assessed, 26 (65 ) were of the male sex, and the patients’ age varied from 43 to 86 years (mean of 61.2 9.6 years).Table 2 – Reproducibility of AFQLQ v.2 according to intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) between the scores of the initial test and of the retest after 15 days. S Paulo,ICC (Bartko) Test-retest ( n=40) Total score Palpitation Dyspnea Chest pain Dizziness Fatigue Well-being Illness perception 0.98 0.84 0.82 0.81 0.56 0.92 0.87 0.88 Intraobserver ( n=21) 0.98 0.94 0.95 1.00 0.69 0.89 0.90 0.87 Interobserver (n=19) 0.97 0.71 0.75 0.72 0.48 0.94 0.85 0.Arq Bras Cardiol. 2016; 106(3):171-Moreira et al. Quality of life questionnaireOriginal ArticleDiscussionThe construction of an instrument to assess quality of life and its validation require several steps, reproducibility or reliability being one.