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 8/2015

01-08-2015

Conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30

Auteurs: Chi-Cheng Huang, Shih-Hsin Tu, Heng-Hui Lien, Ching-Shui Huang, Pa-Chun Wang, Wei-Chu Chie

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2015

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

Objective

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.
vorige artikel Measurement properties of translated versions of the Scoliosis Research Society-22 Patient Questionnaire, SRS-22: a systematic review
volgende artikel Short Musculoskeletal Function Assessment: normative data of the Dutch population
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
Lipscomb, J., Snyder, C. F., & Gotay, C. C. (2007). Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the medical outcomes trust framework. Quality of Life Research, 16, 143–164.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Robling, M., Matthews, S. J., Hood, K., Russell, I. T., Holloway, R., Wilkinson, C., et al. (2002). The development of a new site-specific measure of quality of life for breast problems: The Cardiff breast scales. Quality of Life Research, 11, 339–348.PubMedCrossRef
3.
4.
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
5.
Bergman, B., Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Kaasa, S., & Sullivan, M. (1994). The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer, 30A, 635–642.PubMedCrossRef
6.
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
7.
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
8.
Chie, W. C., Chang, K. J., Huang, C. S., & Kuo, W. H. (2003). Quality of life of breast cancer patients in Taiwan: Validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC BR-23. Psychooncology, 12, 729–735.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Chie, W. C., Hong, R. L., Lai, C. C., Ting, L. L., & Hsu, M. M. (2003). Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Quality of Life Research, 12, 93–98.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Chie, W. C., Yang, C. H., Hsu, C., & Yang, P. C. (2004). Quality of life of lung cancer patients: Validation of Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Quality of Life Research, 13, 257–262.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Sung, Y. C., Liu, H. T., & Chie, W. C. (2007). Quality of life of patients with gastric cancer in Taiwan: Validation and clinical application of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-STO22. Psychooncology, 16, 945–949.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Fayers, P. M., Hand, D. J., Bjordal, K., & Groenvold, M. (1997). Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 6, 393–406.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Boehmer, S., & Luszczynska, A. (2006). Two kinds of items in quality of life instruments: ‘Indicator and causal variables’ in the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 15, 131–141.PubMedCrossRef
15.
McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
Fayer, P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRef
17.
Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150.PubMed
18.
Gundy, C. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. A., Scott, N. W., Sprangers, M. A., et al. (2012). Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1607–1617.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
19.
Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Tu, S. H., Huang, C. S., Jeng, J. Y., Chao, H. L., et al. (2010). Quality of life in Taiwanese breast cancer survivors with breast-conserving therapy. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 109, 493–502.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297.CrossRef
21.
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
22.
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
23.
Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
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
25.
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
26.
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
27.
Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45–71.CrossRef
28.
McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
30.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRef
31.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary: SAS Institute.
32.
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
33.
Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, J. B., & Rolph, E. A. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
34.
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
35.
Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Yun, Y. H., Park, Y. S., Lee, E. S., Bang, S. M., Heo, D. S., Park, S. Y., et al. (2004). Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 13, 863–868.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Luo, N., Fones, C. S., Lim, S. E., Xie, F., Thumboo, J., & Li, S. C. (2005). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Validation of English version in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1181–1186.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Kobayashi, K., Takeda, F., Teramukai, S., Gotoh, I., Sakai, H., Yoneda, S., et al. (1998). A cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for Japanese with lung cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 34, 810–815.PubMedCrossRef
39.
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
40.
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
41.
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
42.
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
43.
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
44.
Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Ringdal, G. I., & Ringdal, K. (1993). Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Quality of Life Research, 2, 129–140.PubMedCrossRef
46.
Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Wang, P. C., Yang, J. C., Cheng, C. Y., & Huang, C. S. (2007). Quality of life in disease-free adenocarcinoma survivors: Impacts of clinical stages and reconstructive surgical procedures. Digestive Surgery, 24, 59–65.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Smith, A. B., Cocks, K., Taylor, M., & Parry, D. (2014). Most domains of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 are reliable. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 952–957.PubMedCrossRef
48.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
49.
Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K. H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181–197.CrossRef
50.
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
51.
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
Metagegevens
Titel
Conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30
Auteurs
Chi-Cheng Huang
Shih-Hsin Tu
Heng-Hui Lien
Ching-Shui Huang
Pa-Chun Wang
Wei-Chu Chie
Publicatiedatum
01-08-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0913-3

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2015

Quality of Life Research 8/2015 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

The subjective well-being of individuals diagnosed with comorbid intellectual disability and attention deficit hyperactivity disorders

OriginalPaper

Illness perceptions mediate the relationship between bowel symptom severity and health-related quality of life in IBS patients

Brief Communication

Assessing measurement invariance of three depression scales between neurologic samples and community samples

OriginalPaper

Testing parent dyad interchangeability in the parent proxy-report of PedsQL™ 4.0: a differential item functioning analysis

Brief Communication

The STOP-BANG questionnaire: reliability and validity of the Persian version in sleep clinic population

Brief Communication

Validation of the chronic respiratory questionnaire in the Colombian population with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease