BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The goal was to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for use in palliative care. We wanted to keep as few items as possible in each scale while still being able to compare results with studies using the original scales. We examined the possibilities of shortening the physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting scales. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The shortening was based on 2,366 (physical functioning) and 10,815 (three other scales) observations, respectively. We used item response theory to construct scoring algorithms for predicting scores on the original scales. RESULTS: Evaluations showed that a three-item physical scale, a two-item fatigue scale, and a one-item nausea or vomiting scale predicted the scores on the original scales with excellent agreement and had measurement abilities similar to the original scales with no loss or only a little loss in power to detect group differences. The results of the cognitive functioning scale indicated problems when predicting scores from a shortened version. CONCLUSION: Given the favorable results for the physical functioning, fatigue, and nausea or vomiting scales we expect that the shortened versions of these scales will be included in the abbreviated version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for palliative care.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The goal was to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for use in palliative care. We wanted to keep as few items as possible in each scale while still being able to compare results with studies using the original scales. We examined the possibilities of shortening the physical functioning, cognitive functioning, fatigue, and nausea and vomiting scales. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The shortening was based on 2,366 (physical functioning) and 10,815 (three other scales) observations, respectively. We used item response theory to construct scoring algorithms for predicting scores on the original scales. RESULTS: Evaluations showed that a three-item physical scale, a two-item fatigue scale, and a one-item nausea or vomiting scale predicted the scores on the original scales with excellent agreement and had measurement abilities similar to the original scales with no loss or only a little loss in power to detect group differences. The results of the cognitive functioning scale indicated problems when predicting scores from a shortened version. CONCLUSION: Given the favorable results for the physical functioning, fatigue, and nausea or vomiting scales we expect that the shortened versions of these scales will be included in the abbreviated version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 for palliative care.
Authors: M Panouillères; A Anota; T V Nguyen; A Brédart; J F Bosset; A Monnier; M Mercier; J B Hardouin Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-03-07 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Leslye Rojas-Concha; Maiken Bang Hansen; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-07-11 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Heidi Fransen; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Myrte Zijlstra; Natasja Raijmakers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Juan Ignacio Arraras; Fernando Arias de la Vega; Gemma Asin; Mikel Rico; Uxue Zarandona; Clara Eito; Koldo Cambra; Marta Barrondo; Marta Errasti; Juan Verdún; Jose Rivadeneira; Miguel Angel Dominguez Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-09-04 Impact factor: 4.147