Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Measurement of quality of life in patients: psychometric analyses of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC)

  • Research Papers
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Biomedical advances in medical care and treatment have highlighted potential trade-offs between the length and quality of a patient's life. There is increasing need for psychometrically sound measurement of quality of life in medical patients. Psychometric analyses of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC) were conducted on data from 530 consecutive patients with histologically confirmed cancer. To examine construct validity, a principal components analysis was conducted that revealed a five-factor solution accounting for 70% of the variance in a random half of the original sample and 68% in a cross-replication sample. Content analysis indicated that domains of physical, psychological and social functioning are assessed along with the patient's view of their current well-being and disease symptoms. Convergent-discriminant validity was shown with independent measures of symptoms and anxiety. Most, but not all expected differences in quality of life by demographic and psychological variables were found. Within the limitations imposed by the study and its sample, the FLIC appears to be a conceptually sound, internally consistent instrument worthy of use and further study in other health care samples.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schipper H, Levitt M. Measuring quality of life: risks and benefits. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1115–1123.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Barofsky I, Sugarbaker PH. Cancer. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Moinpoir CA, Feigl P, Metch B. Quality of life ends points in cancer clinical trials. J Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81: 485–495.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Moinpour CM, Hayden KA, Thompson IM, et al. Quality of life assessment in southwest oncology group trials. Oncology 1990; 4: 79–89.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Johnson JR, Temple R. Food and Drug Administration requirements for approval of new anticancer drugs. Cancer Treat Rep 1985; 69: 1155–1157.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Taylor K, Skinner H, Feldstein M, et al. Enhancing physican accrual of patients on to eastern cooperative oncology group (ECOG) trials: Using results of an ECOG survey (EST-C01897) to implement interventions. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1991; 10: 323.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aaronson NK. Methodological issues in assessing a quality of life of cancer patients. Cancer 1991; 67: 844–850.

    Google Scholar 

  8. World Health Organization. The constitution of the world health organization. World Health Org Chron 1947; 1: 29.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Mulhern RK, Ochs J, Armstrong FD, et al. Assessment of quality of life among pediatric patients with cancer. Psychological assessment. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989; 1: 130–138.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Aaronson NK, Bullinger M, Ahmedzai S. A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials. In: Recent Results in Cancer Research III, Berlin: Springer-Verlag 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Cella DF, Tulsky DS. Measuring quality of life today: methodological aspects. Oncology 1990; 4: 29–38.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Skeel R. Quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials-It's time to catch up. J. Natl Cancer Inst 1989; 81: 472–473.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Schipper H, Clinch J, McMurray A, Levitt M. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients. The functional living index-cancer: development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472–483.

    Google Scholar 

  14. VanKnippenberg FCE, deHaes JCJM. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: Psychometric properties of instruments. J. Clin Epidemiol 1988; 41: 1042–1053.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Donovan K, Sanson-Fisher RW, Redman S. Measuring quality of life in cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 1989; 7: 958–968.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Speilberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. STAI Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1970.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morrow GR, Morrell C. Behavioral treatment for anticipatory nausea and vomiting induced by cancer chemotherapy. N Engl J Med 1982; 307: 1476–1480.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Morrow GR. The assessment of nausea and vomiting: past problems, current issues and suggestions for future research. Cancer 1984; 53: 2267–2278.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carnrike CLM, Carey MP. Assessing nausea and vomiting in adult chemotherapy patients: review and recommendations. Ann Behav Med 1990; 12: 79–85.

    Google Scholar 

  20. VanDam FSAM, Aaronson NK. Practical problems in conducting cancer-related problems in conducting cancer-related psychosocial research. In: Aaronson NK, Beckmann J, eds. The Quality of Life of Cancer Patients. New York: Raven Press, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Sugarbaker PH, Barofsky I, Rosenberg SA, Gianola FJ. Quality of life assessment of patients in extremity sarcoma clinical trials. Surgery 1982; 91: 17–23.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull 1955; 52: 281–302.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Andersen BL, Brofitt B, Karlsson JA, Turnquist DC. A psychometric analysis of the sexual arousability index. J Consult Clin Psychol 1989; 57: 123–130.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Harman HH. Modern Factor Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. In: Holland JC, Rowland JH, eds. Handbook of Psychooncology: Psychological Care of the Patient with Cancer. New York: Oxford University Press 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Bull 1986; 99: 432–442.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Guilford JG. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Morrow GR, Black PM, Dudgeon DJ. Advances in data assessment: Application to the etiology of nausea reported during chemotherapy, concerns about significance testing and opportunities in clinical trials. Cancer 1991; 67: 780–787.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Morrow GR. Behavioral factors influencing the development and expression of chemotherapy induced side effects. Br J Cancer 1992; in press.

  29. Morrow GR, Dobkin P. Anticipatory nausea and vomiting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy treatment: prevalence, etiology and behavioral interventions. Clin Psychol Rev 1988; 88: 517–556.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Carey MP, Burish TG. Etiology and treatment of the psychological side effects associated with cancer chemotherapy: a critical review and discussion. Psychol Bull 1988; 104: 307–325.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Greene V., Carmine EG. Assessing the reliability of linear composites. In: Schuessler KF, ed. Sociological Methodology. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Carmine EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Ganz PA, Haskell CA, Figlin RA. Estimating the quality of life in a clinical trial of patients with metastatic lung cancer using the Karnofsky Performance Status and the Functional Living Index-Cancer. Cancer 1988; 61: 849–856.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Morrow GR, Lindke J, Blasck PM. Anticipatory nausea development in cancer patients: replication and extension of a learning model. Br J Psychol 1991; 82: 61–72. 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Morrow GR, Feldstein M, Adler LM, et al. Development of a brief measure of psychosocial adjustment to medical illness applied to cancer patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 1981; 3: 79–81.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27: S271-S232.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Stewart AL, Hayes RD, Ware JE. The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724–735.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Wiklund I, Dimenas E, Wahl M. Factors of importance when evaluating quality of life in clinical trials. Cont Clin Trials 1990; 11: 169–170.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Behavioral Medicine Unit, University of Rochester Cancer Center, 601 Elmwood Avenue, Box 704, 14642, Rochester, NY, USA

    G. R. Morrow, J. Lindke & P. Black

Authors
  1. G. R. Morrow
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. Lindke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. P. Black
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This research was supported in parts by Research Career Development Award K04-CA-01038, by research grants CA11198 and CA26832 from the National Cancer Institute, by NR01905 from the National Center for Nursing Research, DHHS, and by research grants PBR42C and PBR43 from the American Cancer Society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Morrow, G.R., Lindke, J. & Black, P. Measurement of quality of life in patients: psychometric analyses of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC). Qual Life Res 1, 287–296 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00434942

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00434942

Key words

Search

Navigation