Laura Ashley1, Adam B Smith2, Helen Jones3, Galina Velikova3, Penny Wright3. 1. School of Social, Psychological and Communication Sciences, Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Leeds Metropolitan University, Leeds, UK. Electronic address: l.j.ashley@leedsmet.ac.uk. 2. York Health Economics Consortium, University of York, York, UK; Research Innovation Office, University of York, York, UK. 3. Psychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to provide new insights into the psychometrics of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) questionnaire, originally developed for longer-term survivors 5+years post-diagnosis. Specifically, to examine the classic psychometric properties of QLACS in a sample of shorter-term survivors, and to undertake Rasch analysis to explore the extent to which the Generic and Cancer-Specific summary scales (and separately-analysed Benefits of cancer domain) are unidimensional, with linear measurement properties and no differential item functioning (DIF). METHODS: Patients with potentially curable breast, colorectal or prostate cancer completed QLACS 15 months post-diagnosis (N=407). Score distributions, floor and ceiling effects, internal reliability, and feasibility (completion time and missing data) were examined. Rasch analysis included examination of item fit, DIF and unidimensionality. RESULTS: The QLACS domains and summary scales had very similar score distributions and classic psychometric properties (no ceiling effects, majority no floor effects, acceptable reliability) to those found in development work with longer-term survivors. Median completion time was 10 min and total missing data 2.3%. The Generic summary scale contained several misfitting items and exhibited multidimensionality. The Cancer-Specific summary scale and Benefits domain showed fit to the Rasch model and demonstrated unidimensionality and no DIF, with just one or no item modifications respectively. CONCLUSION: QLACS demonstrates similarly good classic psychometric properties among shorter-term as among longer-term survivors, and has good feasibility. The Cancer-Specific summary scale and Benefits domain showed an impressive degree of fit to the Rasch model, although the validity of computing the Generic summary score was not supported.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this paper is to provide new insights into the psychometrics of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) questionnaire, originally developed for longer-term survivors 5+years post-diagnosis. Specifically, to examine the classic psychometric properties of QLACS in a sample of shorter-term survivors, and to undertake Rasch analysis to explore the extent to which the Generic and Cancer-Specific summary scales (and separately-analysed Benefits of cancer domain) are unidimensional, with linear measurement properties and no differential item functioning (DIF). METHODS: Patients with potentially curable breast, colorectal or prostate cancer completed QLACS 15 months post-diagnosis (N=407). Score distributions, floor and ceiling effects, internal reliability, and feasibility (completion time and missing data) were examined. Rasch analysis included examination of item fit, DIF and unidimensionality. RESULTS: The QLACS domains and summary scales had very similar score distributions and classic psychometric properties (no ceiling effects, majority no floor effects, acceptable reliability) to those found in development work with longer-term survivors. Median completion time was 10 min and total missing data 2.3%. The Generic summary scale contained several misfitting items and exhibited multidimensionality. The Cancer-Specific summary scale and Benefits domain showed fit to the Rasch model and demonstrated unidimensionality and no DIF, with just one or no item modifications respectively. CONCLUSION: QLACS demonstrates similarly good classic psychometric properties among shorter-term as among longer-term survivors, and has good feasibility. The Cancer-Specific summary scale and Benefits domain showed an impressive degree of fit to the Rasch model, although the validity of computing the Generic summary score was not supported.
Authors: Yolanda Andreu Vaillo; Andrea Conchado Peiró; Paula Martinez Lopez; María Teresa Martinez Martinez; Pilar Moreno; Leoncio Arribas Alpuente Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-11-27 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Mark de Mol; Sabine Visser; Joachim G J V Aerts; Paul Lodder; Jolanda de Vries; Brenda L den Oudsten Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-11-26 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Rosalba Rosato; Silvia Testa; Antonio Bertolotto; Paolo Confalonieri; Francesco Patti; Alessandra Lugaresi; Maria Grazia Grasso; Anna Toscano; Andrea Giordano; Alessandra Solari Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-04-14 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Antonio Escobar; Maria del Mar Trujillo-Martín; Antonio Rueda; Elisabeth Pérez-Ruiz; Nancy E Avis; Amaia Bilbao Journal: Health Qual Life Outcomes Date: 2015-11-16 Impact factor: 3.186