Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0913-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
This study aimed to evaluate the conceptual structure of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) by analyzing data collected from patients with major cancers in Taiwan. The conceptual structure underlying QLQ-C30, including higher-order factors, was explored by structural equation modeling (SEM).
The Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was used as the measuring instrument. Higher-order models, including mental health/physical health, mental function/physical burden, symptom burden/function, single latent health-related quality of life, formative symptom burden/function, and formative health-related quality of life, were tested.
Study subjects included 283 patients with breast, lung, and nasopharyngeal cancers. The original QLQ-C30 multi-factorial structure demonstrated poor composite reliability of the cognitive function subscale. The formative symptom/burden model was favored by model fit indices, further supporting causal–indicator duality, but was compromised by unexpected associations between symptomatic subscales and latent factors. The formative health-related quality of life was proposed with a single second-order latent factor where symptomatic subscales remained formative. Two additional symptom measures from the formal cognitive function subscale with the formative health-related quality-of-life model were proposed as the alterative conceptual structure for the Taiwan Chinese QLQ-C30.
Results of the current study represent the complete SEM approach for the EORTC QLQ-C30. The formative health-related quality-of-life model with elimination of cognitive function enhances the conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version with parsimonious fit and interpretability.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 27 kb)11136_2014_913_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx
Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376. PubMedCrossRef
Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., Franklin, J., te Velde, A., Muller, M., et al. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Module first results from a three-country field study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 2756–2768. PubMed
Bjordal, K., Hammerlid, E., Ahlner-Elmqvist, M., de Graeff, A., Boysen, M., Evensen, J. F., et al. (1999). Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 1008–1019. PubMed
McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fayer, P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley. CrossRef
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150. PubMed
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297. CrossRef
Hays, R. D., & Hayasi, T. (1990). Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user’s guide for multitrait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 22, 167–175. CrossRef
Howard, K. I., & Forehand, G. G. (1962). A method for correcting item total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 731–735. CrossRef
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. CrossRef
Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 266–279. CrossRef
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606. CrossRef
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45–71. CrossRef
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50. CrossRef
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary: SAS Institute.
Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equation framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148–157. CrossRef
Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, J. B., & Rolph, E. A. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
MacCallum, R., Browne, M., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 2, 130–149. CrossRef
Hong, Z., & Katsuya, K. (2004). Testing psychometric properties of the standard Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Journal of Epidemiology, 14, 193–203. CrossRef
Montazeri, A., Harirchi, I., Vahdani, M., Khaleghi, F., Jarvandi, S., Ebrahimi, M., & Haji-Mahmoodi, M. (1999). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Supportive Care in Cancer, 7, 400–406. PubMedCrossRef
Silpakit, C., Sirilerttrakul, S., Jirajarus, M., Sirisinha, T., Sirachainan, E., & Ratanatharathorn, V. (2006). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Validation study of the Thai version. Quality of Life Research, 15, 167–172. PubMedCrossRef
Chaukar, D. A., Das, A. K., Deshpande, M. S., Pai, P. S., Pathak, K. A., Chaturvedi, P., et al. (2005). Quality of life of head and neck cancer patient: Validation of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30 and European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-H&N 35 in Indian patients. Indian Journal of Cancer, 42, 178–184. PubMed
Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E, Jr, Bentler, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1179–1188. PubMedCrossRef
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K. H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181–197. CrossRef
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225. CrossRef
- Conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30
- Springer International Publishing