Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2013

Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module

Auteurs: Susanne Singer, Philipp M. Engelberg, Gregor Weißflog, Susanne Kuhnt, Jochen Ernst

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2013

Abstract

Purpose

Providing sufficient information about diagnosis and treatment is an important feature of high-quality patient care in oncology. To measure patient satisfaction with information received, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group has recently developed a new tool, the information module (INFO25). The aim of this study was to evaluate the scale structure of the INFO25.

Methods

A total of n = 423 patients completed the INFO25 after finishing cancer therapy. The internal consistency of multi-item subscales was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha. The scale structure was evaluated using multi-trait methods and confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

Cronbach’s Alpha of the multi-item scales ranged from 0.79 to 0.88. Only two items correlated somewhat higher with another scale than with their own, indicating a good scale structure. Construct validity with latent variable models, including a general information factor and four multi-item scales, resulted in the following fit indices CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08, TLI = 0.99 and WRMR = 1.03.

Conclusion

The suggested construct of the INFO25 with a total score (general factor) in addition to the subscales is valid.

vorige artikel The Caregivers Quality of Life Cancer index scale (CQoLC): an exploratory factor analysis for validation in French cancer patients’ spouses

volgende artikel Validation of a new patient-generated questionnaire for quality of life in an urban sample of elder residents

Baron, G., & Poveda, J. (1993). In Scientific Foundation of the Spanish Association Against Cancer (Ed.), Information to the terminal patient: the bearable truth, in Information on cancer patient diagnosis (p. 119). ALVE, Mayo.

Barnett, M. M., Devrell, C., Barrington, M., & McMichael, H. (1995). Information needs of patients with advanced cancer—How much do they know and does this match what they want to know? Psycho-Oncology, 4, 83.CrossRef

Fielding, R., & Hung, J. (1996). Preferences for information and involvement in decisions during cancer care among a Hong Kong Chinese population. Psycho-Oncology, 5, 321–329.CrossRef

Degner, L. F., Kristjanson, L. J., Bowman, D., Sloan, J. A., Carriere, K. C., O’Neil, J., et al. (1997). Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA, 277, 1485–1492.PubMedCrossRef

Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.PubMed

Tamburini, M., Gangeri, L., Brunelli, C., Beltrami, E., Boeri, P., Borreani, C., et al. (2000). Assessment of hospitalised cancer patients’ needs by the needs evaluation questionnaire. Annals of Oncology, 11, 31–37.PubMedCrossRef

Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980). Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 92, 832–836.PubMed

Charlton, R., Dovey, S., & Mizushima, Y. (1993). National differences in breaking bad news. Medical Journal of Australia, 159, 72.PubMed

Tajima,T. (1997). Informed consent for patients with advanced cancer. Tokai Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, 22(6), 271–274.

10.

Mitchell, J. L. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in the disclosure of cancer. Cancer Pract, 6, 153–160.PubMedCrossRef

11.

Horikawa, N., Yamazaki, T., Sagawa, M., & Nagata, T. (1999). The disclosure of information to cancer patients and its relationship to their mental state in a consultation-liaison psychiatry setting in Japan. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 368–373.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Horikawa, N., Yamazaki, T., Sagawa, M., & Nagata, T. (2000). Changes in disclosure of information to cancer patients in a general hospital in Japan. General Hospital Psychiatry, 22, 37–42.PubMedCrossRef

13.

Elwyn, T. S., Fetters, M. D., Sasaki, H., & Tsuda, T. (2002). Responsibility and cancer disclosure in Japan. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 281–293.CrossRef

14.

Younge, D., Moreau, P., Ezzat, A., & Gray, A. (1997). Communicating with cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 809, 309–316.PubMedCrossRef

15.

Baile, W. F., Buckman, R., Lenzi, R., Glober, G., Beale, E. A., & Kudelka, A. P. (2000). SPIKES—A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: Application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist, 5, 302–311.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Betson, C. L., Fielding, R., Wong, G., Chung, S. F., & Nestel, D. F. (1997). Evaluation of two videotape instruction programmes on how to break bad news—For Cantonese-speaking medical students in Hong Kong. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 20, 172–177.

17.

Fallowfield, L., Lipkin, M., & Hall, A. (1998). Teaching senior oncologists communication skills: Results from phase I of a comprehensive longitudinal program in the United Kingdom. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 1961–1968.PubMed

18.

Arraras, J. I., Kuljanic-Vlasic, K., Björdal, K., Yun, Y. H., Efficace, F., Holzner, B., et al. (2007). EORTC QLQ-INFO26: A questionnaire to assess information given to cancer patients—a preliminary analysis in eight countries. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 249–254.PubMedCrossRef

19.

Arraras, J. I., Greimel, E., Sezer, O., Chie, W. C., Bergenmar, M., Costantini, A., et al. (2010). An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: An instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 2726–2738.PubMedCrossRef

20.

Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brüssel: EORTC.

21.

Schulze, R. (2005). Modeling structures of intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 241–263). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRef

22.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef

23.

Yu, C. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.

24.

Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2002). Mplus User’s Guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

25.

SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.

26.

Parker, P. A., Baile, W. F., De Moor, C., Lenzi, R., Kudelka, A. P., & Cohen, L. (2001). Breaking bad news about cancer: Patients’ preferences for communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 2049–2056.PubMed

27.

Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.PubMed

28.

Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., Hayter, C., Groome, P., Nickel, J. C., Downes, H. et al. (2000). What questions do patients with curable prostate cancer want answered? Medical Decision Making, 20(1), 7–19.

29.

Girgis, A., Boyes, A., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Burrows, S. (2000). Perceived needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: Rural versus urban location. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24, 166–173.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Leydon, G. M., Boulton, M., Moynihan, C., Jones, A., Mossman, J., Boudioni, M., et al. (2000). Cancer patients’ information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study. BMJ, 320, 909–913.PubMedCrossRef

31.

Payne, S., Large, S., Jarrett, N., & Turner, P. (2000). Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: A national survey. Lancet, 355, 1792.PubMedCrossRef

32.

Benowitz, S. (1999). To tell the truth: A cancer diagnosis in other cultures is often a family affair. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91, 1918–1919.PubMedCrossRef

33.

Bickeböller, R. (1999). Die Wahrheit wissen, aber nicht mitteilen dürfen—Zum Problem der Aufklärung am Krankenbett. Ethik in der Medizin, 11, 182–189.CrossRef

34.

Carlsson, M. E., Strang, P. M., & Nygren, U. (1999). Qualitative analysis of the questions raised by patients with gynecologic cancers and their relatives in an educational support group. Journal of Cancer Education, 14, 41–46.PubMed

35.

Davidson, J. R., Brundage, M. D., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (1999). Lung cancer treatment decisions: Patients’ desires for participation and information. Psychooncology, 8, 511–520.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module
Auteurs: Susanne Singer
Philipp M. Engelberg
Gregor Weißflog
Susanne Kuhnt
Jochen Ernst
Publicatiedatum: 01-02-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0114-x

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2013

Validation of a new patient-generated questionnaire for quality of life in an urban sample of elder residents

Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome symptomatology and the impact on life functioning: is there something here?

Testing the psychometric properties of the Participation Scale in Eastern Nepal

The influence of parental education on child mental health in Spain

The health-related quality of life burden of co-morbid cardiovascular disease and major depressive disorder in Australia: findings from a population-based, cross-sectional study

Factors influencing self- and parent-reporting health-related quality of life in children with brain tumors