Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 9/2013

01-11-2013

Psychometric evaluation of the EORTC computerized adaptive test (CAT) fatigue item pool

Auteurs: Morten Aa. Petersen, Johannes M. Giesinger, Bernhard Holzner, Juan I. Arraras, Thierry Conroy, Eva-Maria Gamper, Madeleine T. King, Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw, Teresa Young, Mogens Groenvold

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 9/2013

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
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Fatigue is one of the most common symptoms associated with cancer and its treatment. To obtain a more precise and flexible measure of fatigue, the EORTC Quality of Life Group has developed a computerized adaptive test (CAT) measure of fatigue. This is part of an ongoing project developing a CAT version of the widely used EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

Methods

Based on the literature search and evaluations by experts and patients, 41 new fatigue items were developed (in addition to the three QLQ-C30 fatigue items). Psychometric properties of the items, including evaluations of dimensionality, fit to item response theory (IRT) model, and differential item functioning (DIF), were assessed in an international sample of cancer patients.

Results

Responses were obtained from 1,321 cancer patients coming from eight countries. Factor analysis showed that 37 of the items could be included in a unidimensional model (RMSEA = 0.098, TLI = 0.995, CFI = 0.920). Of the 37 items, two were deleted because of poor fit to the IRT model forming the basis for the CAT, and one because of DIF between cancer sites.

Conclusions

We have established a 34-item fatigue bank allowing for more precise and flexible measurement of fatigue, while still being backward compatible with the QLQ-C30 fatigue scale.
vorige artikel Validation of a Dutch version of the Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS) for patients with multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands
volgende artikel Comparison of the responsiveness of the SF-36, the Oxford Knee Score, and the Knee Society Clinical Rating System in patients undergoing total knee replacement
Literatuur
1.
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(5), 365–376.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Fayers, P., & Bottomley, A. (2002). Quality of life research within the EORTC-the EORTC QLQ - C30. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 38(Suppl 4), S125–S133.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Wainer, H. (2000). Computerized Adaptive testing: A primer (2nd ed.). Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
4.
Bjorner, J. B., Chang, C. H., Thissen, D., & Reeve, B. B. (2007). Developing tailored instruments: Item banking and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 95–108.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Cella, D., Gershon, R., Lai, J. S., & Choi, S. (2007). The future of outcomes measurement: Item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 133–141.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Fliege, H., Becker, J., Walter, O. B., Bjorner, J. B., Klapp, B. F., & Rose, M. (2005). Development of a computer-adaptive test for depression (D-CAT). Quality of Life Research, 14(10), 2277–2291.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Lai, J. S., Cella, D., Dineen, K., Bode, R., Von Roenn, J., Gershon, R. C., et al. (2005). An item bank was created to improve the measurement of cancer-related fatigue. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 190–197.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Schwartz, C., Welch, G., Santiago-Kelley, P., Bode, R., & Sun, X. (2006). Computerized adaptive testing of diabetes impact: A feasibility study of Hispanics and non-Hispanics in an active clinic population. Quality of Life Research, 15(9), 1503–1518.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Ware, J. E., Jr, Kosinski, M., Bjorner, J. B., Bayliss, M. S., & Batenhorst, A. (2003). Applications of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) to the assessment of headache impact. Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 935–952.PubMedCrossRef
10.
11.
Garcia, S. F., Cella, D., Clauser, S. B., Flynn, K. E., Lad, T., Lai, J. S., et al. (2007). Standardizing patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer clinical trials: A patient-reported outcomes measurement information system initiative. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 25(32), 5106–5112.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Mock, V. (2001). Fatigue management: Evidence and guidelines for practice. Cancer, 92(6 Suppl), 1699–1707.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Vogelzang, N. J., Breitbart, W., Cella, D., Curt, G. A., Groopman, J. E., Horning, S. J., et al. (1997). Patient, caregiver, and oncologist perceptions of cancer-related fatigue: results of a tripart assessment survey. The Fatigue Coalition. Seminars in Hematology, 34(3 Suppl 2), 4–12.PubMed
14.
Giesinger, J. M., Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Arraras, J. I., Conroy, T., et al. (2011). Cross-cultural development of an item list for computer-adaptive testing of fatigue in oncological patients. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 9, 19.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Chie, W.-C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., et al. (2010). Development of computerised adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 dimensions—General approach and initial results for physical functioning. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 1352–1358.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Aaronson, N. K., Chie, W.-C., Conroy, T., Costantini, A., et al. (2011). Development of computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for the EORTC QLQ-C30 physical functioning dimension. Quality of Life Research, 20(4), 479–490.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Choi, S. W., Cook, K. F., & Dodd, B. G. (1997). Parameter recovery for the partial credit model using MULTILOG. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 1(2), 114–142.PubMed
18.
Fayers, P. M. (2007). Applying item response theory and computer adaptive testing: The challenges for health outcomes assessment. Quality of Life Research, 16(Suppl 1), 187–194.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (1996). PARSCALE—IRT based test scoring and item analysis for graded open-ended exercises and performance tasks. Chicago: Scientific Software International, Inc.
20.
Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2002). Mplus user’s guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
21.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). Scree test for number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1(2), 245–276.CrossRef
22.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258.CrossRef
23.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modelling (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
24.
Bjorner, J. B., Kosinski, M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2003). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the headache impact test (HIT). Quality of Life Research, 12(8), 913–933.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Junker, B. W., & Sijtsma, K. (2000). Latent and manifest monotonicity in item response models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 65–81.CrossRef
26.
Muraki, E. (1997). A generalized partial credit model. In W. J. van der Linden & R. K. Hambleton (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 153–168). Berlin: Springer.CrossRef
27.
Samejima, F. (1997). Graded response model. In: Linden, W. V. D. & Hambleton, R. K. (Eds.), Handbook of modern item response theory (pp. 85–100). Berlin: Springer.
28.
Maydeuolivares, A., Drasgow, F., & Mead, A. D. (1994). Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 18(3), 245–256.CrossRef
29.
Bond, T. G., & Fox, C. M. (2007). Applying the Rasch model: Fundamental measurement in the human sciences (2nd ed.). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
30.
Wright, B. D., & Linacre, J. M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.
31.
Holland, P. W., & Wainer, H. (1993). Differential item functioning. Hilsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
French, A. W., & Miller, T. R. (1996). Logistic regression and its use in detecting differential item functioning in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 33(3), 315–332.CrossRef
33.
Petersen, M. Aa., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J. B., Aaronson, N. K., Conroy, T., Cull, A., et al. (2003). Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire. Quality of Life Research, 12(4), 373–385.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Bjorner, J. B., Kreiner, S., Ware, J. E., Damsgaard, M. T., & Bech, P. (1998). Differential item functioning in the Danish translation of the SF-36. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1189–1202.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Gierl, M. J., Rogers, W. T., & Klinger, D. A. (1999). Using statistical and judgmental reviews to identify and interpret translation differential item functioning. Alberta Journal of Education and Research, 45(4), 353–376.
36.
Nagelkerke, N. J. D. (1991). A note on a general definition of the coefficient of determination. Biometrika, 78(3), 691–692.CrossRef
37.
Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2009). The practical impact of differential item functioning analyses in a health-related quality of life instrument. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1125–1130.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Hart, D. L., Deutscher, D., Crane, P. K., & Wang, Y. C. (2009). Differential item functioning was negligible in an adaptive test of functional status for patients with knee impairments who spoke English or Hebrew. Quality of Life Research, 18(8), 1067–1083.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Psychometric evaluation of the EORTC computerized adaptive test (CAT) fatigue item pool
Auteurs
Morten Aa. Petersen
Johannes M. Giesinger
Bernhard Holzner
Juan I. Arraras
Thierry Conroy
Eva-Maria Gamper
Madeleine T. King
Irma M. Verdonck-de Leeuw
Teresa Young
Mogens Groenvold
Publicatiedatum
01-11-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 9/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0372-2

Andere artikelen Uitgave 9/2013

Quality of Life Research 9/2013 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Development and validation of the positive affect and well-being scale for the neurology quality of life (Neuro-QOL) measurement system

OriginalPaper

Impact of telemonitoring on older adults health-related quality of life: the Tele-ERA study

Review

Measurement properties of the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder and Hand) outcome measure and cross-cultural adaptations of the QuickDASH: a systematic review

OriginalPaper

Comparative responsiveness and minimal change of the Knee Quality of Life 26-item (KQoL-26) questionnaire

OriginalPaper

Development and psychometric properties of the PROMIS® pediatric fatigue item banks

OriginalPaper

Validation of a Dutch version of the Neurological Fatigue Index (NFI-MS) for patients with multiple sclerosis in the Netherlands