Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Test–Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the test–retest reliability of an interactive voice response (IVR) version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30.

Methods

A convenience sample of outpatient cancer clinic patients (n = 127) was asked to complete the IVR version of the QLQ-C30 twice, 2 days apart. The QLQ-C30 is a 30-item, cancer-specific questionnaire composed of single-item and multi-item scales. The instrument has five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea/vomiting), and a global quality-of-life scale. The remaining single items assess dyspnea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial problems. The analyses focused on intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), comparing the ICC 95 % lower confidence interval (CI) value with a critical value of 0.70.

Results

The ICCs for the nine multi-item scales were all above 0.69, ranging from 0.698 to 0.926 (ICC 95 % lower CI value range 0.588–0.895). All of the scales were significantly different from our threshold reliability of 0.70, with the exception of the cognitive functioning scale. The ICCs for the six single items ranged from 0.741 to 0.883 (ICC 95 % lower CI value range 0.646–0.835), and three of the six were statistically different from 0.70. The evidence supports the stability of 11 of the 15 scores obtained on the IVR version of the QLQ-C30 upon repeated measurement.

Conclusion

The measurement equivalence of the IVR and paper versions of the QLQ-C30 has been reported elsewhere. This analysis provides evidence demonstrating adequate test–retest reliability of the IVR version for 11 of the QLQ-C30’s 15 scores.

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

Fig. 1

References

  1. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health. 2008;11:322–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, De Haes JC. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lundy JJ, Coons SJ, Aaronson NK. Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2014;23:229–37.

  4. Marx RG, Menezes A, Horovitz L, Jones EC, Warren RF. A comparison of two time intervals for test–retest reliability of health status instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:730–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. 4th ed. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. McGraw KO, Wong SP. Forming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Methods. 1996;1(1):30–46 (Correction, Vol. 1, No. 4, 390).

  8. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. Value Health. 2009;12(4):419–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582–92.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bottomley A, de Graeff A, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30 reference values manual. Brussels: The EORTC Quality of Life Group; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Luckett T, King MT, Butow PN, Oguchi M, Rankin N, Price MA, Hackl NA, Heading G. Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence, and recommendations. Ann Oncol. 2011;22:2179–90.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hjermstad MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Test–retest study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer core quality of life questionnaire. J Clin Oncol. 1995;13:1249–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, et al. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:998–1007.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. King M, Winstanley J, Kenny P, Viney R, Zapart S, Boyer M. Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-LC13 in Australians with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. CHERE Working Paper 2007/13, Centre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, Sydney. 2007. http://www.chere.uts.edu.au/pdf/wp2007_13.pdf. Accessed 1 Jun 2013.

  16. Uwer L, Rotonda C, Guillemin F, Miny J, Kaminsky MC, et al. Responsiveness of EORTC QLQ-C30, QLQ-CR38 and FACT-C quality of life questionnaires in patients with colorectal cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2011;9:70. http://www.hqlo/content/9/1/70.

Download references

Acknowledgments

The data used for this research were collected as part of a study funded by ClinPhone PLC (now Perceptive Informatics). Additional support was provided by Arizona Cancer Center Support Grant CA023074 from the National Cancer Institute. The authors gratefully acknowledge the staff and facility support provided by the University of Arizona College of Pharmacy and the Arizona Cancer Center’s Behavioral Measurements Shared Service. J.J.L. and S.J.C. were employed by the University of Arizona at the time when this study was conducted. The authors have no financial interest in Perceptive Informatics or ClinPhone PLC.

Each author made a substantial contribution to the conception, design, and content of the manuscript; was involved in drafting the manuscript and revising it critically for important intellectual content; has given final approval of the version to be published; and has agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium, Critical Path Institute, 1730 E. River Road, Tucson, AZ, 85718-5893, USA

    J. Jason Lundy & Stephen Joel Coons

  2. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Department of Psychosocial Research, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, 121 Plesmanlaan, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Neil K. Aaronson

Authors
  1. J. Jason Lundy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stephen Joel Coons
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil K. Aaronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to J. Jason Lundy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lundy, J.J., Coons, S.J. & Aaronson, N.K. Test–Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Patient 8, 165–170 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0071-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-014-0071-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation