PURPOSE: The purposes of this two-phase study were to (1) develop and examine the content validity and feasibility of the Chinese-version cancer needs questionnaire, short form, head and neck cancer-specific version (CNQ-SF-hn) (phase I), and (2) examine its psychometric characteristics as supported by reliability and construct validity (phase II) in oral cavity cancer patients in Taiwan. METHODS: Newly diagnosed oral cavity cancer patients (N = 206) were recruited from a medical center in northern Taiwan. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and psychometric analyses. RESULTS: The results showed that the CNQ-SF-hn (1) had good internal consistency reliability for the overall scale and subscales; (2) had good 1-week test-retest reliability (correlation = 0.80) for the overall scale; (3) had construct validity, supported by six clearly identified factors explaining 74.87% of the variance; and (4) had convergent validity, supported by correlations among its subscales and related scales, as well as by discriminating care needs according to undergoing versus not undergoing reconstructive surgery and cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese-version CNQ-SF-hn is a psychometrically satisfactory instrument. Further validation is suggested for its factor structure and different head and neck cancers.
PURPOSE: The purposes of this two-phase study were to (1) develop and examine the content validity and feasibility of the Chinese-version cancer needs questionnaire, short form, head and neck cancer-specific version (CNQ-SF-hn) (phase I), and (2) examine its psychometric characteristics as supported by reliability and construct validity (phase II) in oral cavity cancerpatients in Taiwan. METHODS: Newly diagnosed oral cavity cancerpatients (N = 206) were recruited from a medical center in northern Taiwan. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and psychometric analyses. RESULTS: The results showed that the CNQ-SF-hn (1) had good internal consistency reliability for the overall scale and subscales; (2) had good 1-week test-retest reliability (correlation = 0.80) for the overall scale; (3) had construct validity, supported by six clearly identified factors explaining 74.87% of the variance; and (4) had convergent validity, supported by correlations among its subscales and related scales, as well as by discriminating care needs according to undergoing versus not undergoing reconstructive surgery and cancer stage. CONCLUSIONS: The Chinese-version CNQ-SF-hn is a psychometrically satisfactory instrument. Further validation is suggested for its factor structure and different head and neck cancers.
Authors: K Bjordal; A de Graeff; P M Fayers; E Hammerlid; C van Pottelsberghe; D Curran; M Ahlner-Elmqvist; E J Maher; J W Meyza; A Brédart; A L Söderholm; J J Arraras; J S Feine; H Abendstein; R P Morton; T Pignon; P Huguenin; A Bottomly; S Kaasa Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2000-09 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: David P Smith; Rajah Supramaniam; Madeleine T King; Jeanette Ward; Martin Berry; Bruce K Armstrong Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2007-06-20 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Claire F Snyder; Elizabeth Garrett-Mayer; Julie R Brahmer; Michael A Carducci; Roberto Pili; Vered Stearns; Antonio C Wolff; Sydney M Dy; Albert W Wu Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-05-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Simon N Rogers; Suzanne Gwanne; Derek Lowe; Gerry Humphris; Beven Yueh; Ernest A Weymuller Journal: Head Neck Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.147
Authors: Winnie K W So; K C Choi; Joanne M T Chen; Carmen W H Chan; S Y Chair; Olivia W M Fung; Rayman W M Wan; Suzanne S S Mak; W M Ling; W T Ng; Bernice W L Yu Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2014-05-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Shailesh M Gondivkar; Amol R Gadbail; Sachin C Sarode; Rima S Gondivkar; Monal Yuwanati; Gargi S Sarode; Shankargouda Patil Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 3.240