Skip to main content
main-content
Top

Tip

Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2016

01-08-2016

Development and validation of the nasopharyngeal cancer scale among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP-NA V2.0): combined classical test theory and generalizability theory

Auteurs: Jiayuan Wu, Liren Hu, Gaohua Zhang, Qilian Liang, Qiong Meng, Chonghua Wan

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2016

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Objectives

This research was designed to develop a nasopharyngeal cancer (NPC) scale based on quality of life (QOL) instruments for cancer patients (QLICP-NA). This scale was developed by using a modular approach and was evaluated by classical test and generalizability theories.

Methods

Programmed decision procedures and theories on instrument development were applied to create QLICP-NA V2.0. A total of 121 NPC inpatients were assessed using QLICP-NA V2.0 to measure their QOL data from hospital admission until discharge. Scale validity, reliability, and responsiveness were evaluated by correlation, factor, parallel, multi-trait scaling, and t test analyses, as well as by generalizability (G) and decision (D) studies of the generalizability theory.

Results

Results of multi-trait scaling, correlation, factor, and parallel analyses indicated that QLICP-NA V2.0 exhibited good construct validity. The significant difference of QOL between the treated and untreated NPC patients indicated a good clinical validity of the questionnaire. The internal consistency (α) and test–retest reliability coefficients (intra-class correlations) of each domain, as well as the overall scale, were all >0.70. Ceiling effects were not found in all domains and most facets, except for common side effects (24.8 %) in the domain of common symptoms and side effects, tumor early symptoms (27.3 %) and therapeutic side effects (23.2 %) in specific domain, whereas floor effects did not exist in each domain/facet. The overall changes in the physical and social domains were significantly different between pre- and post-treatments with a moderate effective size (standard response mean) ranging from 0.21 to 0.27 (p < 0.05), but these changes were not obvious in the other domains, as well as in the overall scale. Scale reliability was further confirmed by G coefficients and index of dependability, with more exact variance components based on generalizability theory.

Conclusions

QLICP-NA V2.0 exhibited reasonable degrees of validity, reliability, and responsiveness. However, this scale must be further improved before it can be used as a practical instrument to evaluate the QOL of NPC patients in China.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Si, Y. F., et al. (2010). Etiology and prevention research of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chinese Archives Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 17(3), 163–165. Si, Y. F., et al. (2010). Etiology and prevention research of nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chinese Archives Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, 17(3), 163–165.
2.
go back to reference Deng, W., et al. (2012). Analysis of the incidence and mortality of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China between 2003 and 2007. Tumor, 32(3), 189–193. Deng, W., et al. (2012). Analysis of the incidence and mortality of nasopharyngeal carcinoma in China between 2003 and 2007. Tumor, 32(3), 189–193.
3.
go back to reference Han, Y., et al. (2010). Investigation of symptomatic distress during and after radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chinese Nursing Research, 45(11), 626–628. Han, Y., et al. (2010). Investigation of symptomatic distress during and after radiotherapy in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chinese Nursing Research, 45(11), 626–628.
4.
go back to reference Gu, M. F., et al. (2012). Assessment of reliability and validity of QOL-RTI/H&N scale among nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment, 19(10), 746–748. Gu, M. F., et al. (2012). Assessment of reliability and validity of QOL-RTI/H&N scale among nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients. Chinese Journal of Cancer Prevention and Treatment, 19(10), 746–748.
5.
go back to reference WHO. (1993). The development of the WHO quality of life assessment instrument. Geneva: WHO. 1. WHO. (1993). The development of the WHO quality of life assessment instrument. Geneva: WHO. 1.
6.
go back to reference Wan, C. H., et al. (2014). Development and validity of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLIC-CHD: Combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability theory. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 82. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wan, C. H., et al. (2014). Development and validity of the coronary heart disease scale under the system of quality of life instruments for chronic diseases QLIC-CHD: Combinations of classical test theory and Generalizability theory. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 12, 82. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Gao, L., et al. (2006). Ten-year experience of radical radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Analysis of 905 patients. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 15(4), 249–256. Gao, L., et al. (2006). Ten-year experience of radical radiotherapy for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Analysis of 905 patients. Chinese Journal of Radiation Oncology, 15(4), 249–256.
8.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., 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(5), 365–376. CrossRefPubMed Aaronson, N. K., 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(5), 365–376. CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Bjordal, K., et al. (2000). A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Europrean Journal of Cancer, 36(14), 1796–1807. CrossRef Bjordal, K., et al. (2000). A 12 country field study of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 3.0) and the head and neck cancer specific module (EORTC QLQ-H&N35) in head and neck patients. Europrean Journal of Cancer, 36(14), 1796–1807. CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ringash, J., et al. (2004). Interpreting differences in quality of life: The FACT-H&N in laryngeal cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(4), 725–733. CrossRefPubMed Ringash, J., et al. (2004). Interpreting differences in quality of life: The FACT-H&N in laryngeal cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 13(4), 725–733. CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Weymuller, E. A., et al. (2001). Analysis of the performance characteristics of the university of Washington quality of life instrument and its modification (UW-QOL-R). Archives of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, 127(5), 489–493. CrossRefPubMed Weymuller, E. A., et al. (2001). Analysis of the performance characteristics of the university of Washington quality of life instrument and its modification (UW-QOL-R). Archives of Otolaryngology- Head and Neck Surgery, 127(5), 489–493. CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Gu, M. F., et al. (2012). Measurement psychology assessment for quality of life evaluated by QLQ-C30 in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 39(9), 1079–1082. Gu, M. F., et al. (2012). Measurement psychology assessment for quality of life evaluated by QLQ-C30 in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Cancer Research on Prevention and Treatment, 39(9), 1079–1082.
13.
go back to reference Xiao, W. W., et al. (2010). Validity of functional assessment of cancer therepy-head and neck (FACT-H&N) scale (Chinese version) for measuring quality of life in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 26(7), 827–829. Xiao, W. W., et al. (2010). Validity of functional assessment of cancer therepy-head and neck (FACT-H&N) scale (Chinese version) for measuring quality of life in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 26(7), 827–829.
14.
go back to reference Hong, J. S., et al. (2008). Quality of life of the long-term survivors with nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radiotherapy. China Cancer, 17(12), 1082–1085. Hong, J. S., et al. (2008). Quality of life of the long-term survivors with nasopharyngeal carcinoma after radiotherapy. China Cancer, 17(12), 1082–1085.
15.
go back to reference Yang, Z., et al. (2012). Development and validity of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Head and neck cancer (QLICP-HN). Oral Oncology, 48(8), 737–746. CrossRefPubMed Yang, Z., et al. (2012). Development and validity of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Head and neck cancer (QLICP-HN). Oral Oncology, 48(8), 737–746. CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Xiang, Y. T., et al. (2010). Quality of life and mental health in Chinese culture. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23(1), 43–47. CrossRefPubMed Xiang, Y. T., et al. (2010). Quality of life and mental health in Chinese culture. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 23(1), 43–47. CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Kagawa-Singer, M., et al. (2010). Health-related quality of life and culture. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 26(1), 59–67. CrossRefPubMed Kagawa-Singer, M., et al. (2010). Health-related quality of life and culture. Seminars in Oncology Nursing, 26(1), 59–67. CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Wan, C. H., et al. (2008). Development and validation of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients. International Journal of Cancer, 122(1), 190–196. CrossRefPubMed Wan, C. H., et al. (2008). Development and validation of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients. International Journal of Cancer, 122(1), 190–196. CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Wan, C. H., et al. (2008). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Lung cancer (QLICP-LU). Lung Cancer, 60(1), 105–112. CrossRefPubMed Wan, C. H., et al. (2008). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Lung cancer (QLICP-LU). Lung Cancer, 60(1), 105–112. CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Wan, C. H., et al. (2009). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Breast cancer (QLICP-BR). Supportive Care in Cancer, 17(4), 359–366. CrossRefPubMed Wan, C. H., et al. (2009). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Breast cancer (QLICP-BR). Supportive Care in Cancer, 17(4), 359–366. CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Xu, C. Z., et al. (2012). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Colorectal cancer (QLICP-CR). Cancer Investigation, 30(11), 732–740. CrossRefPubMed Xu, C. Z., et al. (2012). Development and validation of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Colorectal cancer (QLICP-CR). Cancer Investigation, 30(11), 732–740. CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Li, W., et al. (2011). Items selection on the specific module of Quality of Life Instruments for patients with liver cancer (QLICP-LI). China Cancer, 20(10), 746–749. Li, W., et al. (2011). Items selection on the specific module of Quality of Life Instruments for patients with liver cancer (QLICP-LI). China Cancer, 20(10), 746–749.
23.
go back to reference Meng, Q., et al. (2013). Reliability analysis of quality of life instruments for cancer patients-gastric cancer (QLICP-GA) based on generalizability theory. Tumor, 33(5), 428–433. Meng, Q., et al. (2013). Reliability analysis of quality of life instruments for cancer patients-gastric cancer (QLICP-GA) based on generalizability theory. Tumor, 33(5), 428–433.
24.
go back to reference Zhang, X. Q., et al. (2012). Development and preliminary evaluation of life instruments for cancer patients-ovarian cancer (QLICP-OV). Chinese General Practice, 15(10A), 3233–3236. Zhang, X. Q., et al. (2012). Development and preliminary evaluation of life instruments for cancer patients-ovarian cancer (QLICP-OV). Chinese General Practice, 15(10A), 3233–3236.
25.
go back to reference Zhang, X. Q., et al. (2009). Development and evaluation of quality of life instruments for cancer patients-cervix cancer (QLICP-CE). China Cancer, 18(3), 183–186. Zhang, X. Q., et al. (2009). Development and evaluation of quality of life instruments for cancer patients-cervix cancer (QLICP-CE). China Cancer, 18(3), 183–186.
26.
go back to reference Wu, Y., et al. (2013). Items selection on specific module of quality of life instruments for cancer patients with leukemia (QLICP-LE). China Cancer, 22(2), 94–97. Wu, Y., et al. (2013). Items selection on specific module of quality of life instruments for cancer patients with leukemia (QLICP-LE). China Cancer, 22(2), 94–97.
27.
go back to reference Wu, Y., et al. (2011). Items selection on the specific module of quality of life instruments for patients with lymphoma (QLICP-LY). China Cancer, 20(11), 821–824. Wu, Y., et al. (2011). Items selection on the specific module of quality of life instruments for patients with lymphoma (QLICP-LY). China Cancer, 20(11), 821–824.
28.
go back to reference Pan, H. Y., et al. (2012). Analysis on the evaluation of the general module of quality of life system for chronic disease. Modern Preventive Medicine, 39(12), 2927–2938. Pan, H. Y., et al. (2012). Analysis on the evaluation of the general module of quality of life system for chronic disease. Modern Preventive Medicine, 39(12), 2927–2938.
29.
go back to reference Wan, C. H. (1999). Discussion on some important issues of the research of quality of life (part two). Chinese Journal of Behavioral Science, 8(2), 1998–2000. Wan, C. H. (1999). Discussion on some important issues of the research of quality of life (part two). Chinese Journal of Behavioral Science, 8(2), 1998–2000.
30.
go back to reference Hayton, J., et al. (2004). Factor retention decision in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. CrossRef Hayton, J., et al. (2004). Factor retention decision in exploratory factor analysis: A tutorial on parallel analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 7(2), 191–205. CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., et al. (1990). Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and use’s guide for multi-trait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behavior Research Methods, Instrument, and Computers, 22(3), 167–175. CrossRef Hays, R. D., et al. (1990). Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and use’s guide for multi-trait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behavior Research Methods, Instrument, and Computers, 22(3), 167–175. CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Aaronson, N., et al. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205. CrossRefPubMed Aaronson, N., et al. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 193–205. CrossRefPubMed
33.
go back to reference McGraw, K. O., et al. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–36. CrossRef McGraw, K. O., et al. (1996). Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 30–36. CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Schuck, P. (2004). Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: Which coefficient should be used? Quality of Life Research, 13(3), 571–586. CrossRefPubMed Schuck, P. (2004). Assessing reproducibility for interval data in health-related quality of life questionnaires: Which coefficient should be used? Quality of Life Research, 13(3), 571–586. CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Zhao, H. S., et al. (2012). Reliability and validity of SF-36 in health survey among empty-nest elders in countryside. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 28(7), 887–889. Zhao, H. S., et al. (2012). Reliability and validity of SF-36 in health survey among empty-nest elders in countryside. Chinese Journal of Public Health, 28(7), 887–889.
36.
go back to reference Valois, P., et al. (1992). The reliability of constructs derived from attitude-behaviors theories: An application of generalizability theory in the health sector. Quality and Quantity, 26(3), 291–305. CrossRef Valois, P., et al. (1992). The reliability of constructs derived from attitude-behaviors theories: An application of generalizability theory in the health sector. Quality and Quantity, 26(3), 291–305. CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Brennan, R. L., et al. (1995). Generalizability of performance assessments. Educational Measurement, 14(2), 9–12. Brennan, R. L., et al. (1995). Generalizability of performance assessments. Educational Measurement, 14(2), 9–12.
38.
go back to reference Winterstein, B. P., et al. (2010). Assessment of score dependability of the Wisconsin Schizotypy scales using generalizability analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavior Assessment, 32(4), 575–585. CrossRef Winterstein, B. P., et al. (2010). Assessment of score dependability of the Wisconsin Schizotypy scales using generalizability analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavior Assessment, 32(4), 575–585. CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Cris-Christoph, P., et al. (2011). A generalizability theory analysis of group ratings in the treatment of cocaine dependence. Psychotherapy Research, 21(3), 252–266. CrossRef Cris-Christoph, P., et al. (2011). A generalizability theory analysis of group ratings in the treatment of cocaine dependence. Psychotherapy Research, 21(3), 252–266. CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Stora, B., et al. (2013). Reliability of observers’ subjective impressions of families: A generalizability theory approach. Psychotherapy Research, 23(4), 448–463. CrossRefPubMed Stora, B., et al. (2013). Reliability of observers’ subjective impressions of families: A generalizability theory approach. Psychotherapy Research, 23(4), 448–463. CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Sprangers, M. A., et al. (1998). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: An update and overview. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 291–300. CrossRefPubMed Sprangers, M. A., et al. (1998). The European organization for research and treatment of cancer approach to developing questionnaire modules: An update and overview. Quality of Life Research, 7(4), 291–300. CrossRefPubMed
42.
go back to reference Cella, D., et al. (2002). Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(12 Suppl 2), S10–S17. CrossRefPubMed Cella, D., et al. (2002). Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(12 Suppl 2), S10–S17. CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Gao, S., et al. (2015). The application of parallel analysis based on (using) the principal axis factoring in exploratory factor analysis. Psychological Exploration, 35(5), 471–473. Gao, S., et al. (2015). The application of parallel analysis based on (using) the principal axis factoring in exploratory factor analysis. Psychological Exploration, 35(5), 471–473.
44.
go back to reference Terwee, C. B., et al. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 349–362. CrossRefPubMed Terwee, C. B., et al. (2003). On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: Guidelines for instrument evaluation. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 349–362. CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Thumboo, J., et al. (2002). The equivalence of English and Chinese SF-36 versions in bilingual Singapore Chinese. Quality of Life Research, 11(5), 495–503. CrossRefPubMed Thumboo, J., et al. (2002). The equivalence of English and Chinese SF-36 versions in bilingual Singapore Chinese. Quality of Life Research, 11(5), 495–503. CrossRefPubMed
46.
go back to reference Hofer, S., et al. (2003). Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease treated for angina: Validity and reliability of German translation of two specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 12(2), 199–212. CrossRefPubMed Hofer, S., et al. (2003). Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease treated for angina: Validity and reliability of German translation of two specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Research, 12(2), 199–212. CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Wan, C. H., et al. (2007). Development of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Reliability and validity analysis. Chinese Journal of Cancer, 26(3), 225–229. PubMed Wan, C. H., et al. (2007). Development of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Reliability and validity analysis. Chinese Journal of Cancer, 26(3), 225–229. PubMed
48.
go back to reference Qi, M. H., et al. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the liver disease quality of life questionnaire (LDQOL 1.0). World Chinese Journal of Digestive, 23(12), 1973–1979. CrossRef Qi, M. H., et al. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the liver disease quality of life questionnaire (LDQOL 1.0). World Chinese Journal of Digestive, 23(12), 1973–1979. CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Wan, C. H., et al. (2007). Development of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Responsiveness analysis. Chinese Journal of Cancer, 26(4), 337–340. PubMed Wan, C. H., et al. (2007). Development of the general module of the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients: Responsiveness analysis. Chinese Journal of Cancer, 26(4), 337–340. PubMed
50.
go back to reference Husted, J. A., et al. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(5), 459–468. CrossRefPubMed Husted, J. A., et al. (2000). Methods for assessing responsiveness: A critical review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 53(5), 459–468. CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Development and validation of the nasopharyngeal cancer scale among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP-NA V2.0): combined classical test theory and generalizability theory
Auteurs
Jiayuan Wu
Liren Hu
Gaohua Zhang
Qilian Liang
Qiong Meng
Chonghua Wan
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2016
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2016
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1251-4