Cheryl Nekolaichuk1, Sharon Watanabe, Crystal Beaumont. 1. Division of Palliative Care Medicine, Department of Oncology, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. cheryl.nekolaichuk@ualberta.ca
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this review was to identify and critique validation studies focusing on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a commonly used symptom assessment tool for advanced cancer and palliative patients. METHODS: Using a comprehensive literature search, the authors identified and screened 87 publications. Thirteen articles were selected for in-depth review, based on the following inclusion criteria: psychometric studies with a primary focus on the ESAS, 1991--2006 publication dates and peer-reviewed English language publications. RESULTS: Most studies involved cancer patients (n = 11). The ESAS format varied across studies, in terms of scale format, item number, item selection and language. Studies focused on gathering reliability estimates (n = 8), content validity evidence (n = 1), concurrent validity evidence (n = 5), predictive validity evidence (n = 1), and sensitivity and/or specificity (n = 3). None of these studies involved patients' perspectives as a source of validity evidence. DISCUSSION: The use of varying instrument formats and limited psychometric evidence support the need for further ESAS validation studies, including the involvement of patients.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this review was to identify and critique validation studies focusing on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a commonly used symptom assessment tool for advanced cancer and palliative patients. METHODS: Using a comprehensive literature search, the authors identified and screened 87 publications. Thirteen articles were selected for in-depth review, based on the following inclusion criteria: psychometric studies with a primary focus on the ESAS, 1991--2006 publication dates and peer-reviewed English language publications. RESULTS: Most studies involved cancerpatients (n = 11). The ESAS format varied across studies, in terms of scale format, item number, item selection and language. Studies focused on gathering reliability estimates (n = 8), content validity evidence (n = 1), concurrent validity evidence (n = 5), predictive validity evidence (n = 1), and sensitivity and/or specificity (n = 3). None of these studies involved patients' perspectives as a source of validity evidence. DISCUSSION: The use of varying instrument formats and limited psychometric evidence support the need for further ESAS validation studies, including the involvement of patients.
Authors: Lauren R Pollack; Nathan E Goldstein; Wendy C Gonzalez; Craig D Blinderman; Mathew S Maurer; David J Lederer; Matthew R Baldwin Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: D Howell; S Keller-Olaman; T K Oliver; T F Hack; L Broadfield; K Biggs; J Chung; D Gravelle; E Green; M Hamel; T Harth; P Johnston; D McLeod; N Swinton; A Syme; K Olson Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: David B Bekelman; Stephanie Hooker; Carolyn T Nowels; Deborah S Main; Paula Meek; Connor McBryde; Brack Hattler; Karl A Lorenz; Paul A Heidenreich Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2013-12-11 Impact factor: 2.947