PURPOSE: The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire is a widely used cancer-specific quality of life instrument comprising a core set of 30 items (QLQ-C30) supplemented by cancer site-specific modules. The purpose of this paper was to examine the extent to which the conventional multi-item domain structure of the QLQ-C30 holds across patients with seven different primary cancer sites. METHODS: Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to test whether a measurement model of the QLQ-C30 was invariant across cancer sites. Configural (same patterns of factor loadings), metric (equivalence of factor loadings) and scalar (equivalence of thresholds) invariance amongst the cancer site groups were assessed (N = 1,906) by comparing the fit of a model with these parameters freely estimated to a model where estimates were constrained to be equal for the corresponding items in each group. RESULTS: All groups exhibited good model fit except for the prostate group, which was excluded. Only 1 of 576 parameters was found to differ between primary sites: specifically, the first threshold of Item 1 in the breast cancer group exhibited non-invariance. In a post hoc analysis, several instances of non-invariance by treatment status (baseline, on-treatment, off-treatment) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Given only one instance of non-invariance between cancer sites, there is a reason to be confident in the validity of conclusions drawn when comparing QLQ-C30 domain scores between different sites and when interpreting the scores of heterogeneous samples, although future research should assess the potential impact of confounding variables such as treatment and gender.
PURPOSE: The EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire is a widely used cancer-specific quality of life instrument comprising a core set of 30 items (QLQ-C30) supplemented by cancer site-specific modules. The purpose of this paper was to examine the extent to which the conventional multi-item domain structure of the QLQ-C30 holds across patients with seven different primary cancer sites. METHODS: Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to test whether a measurement model of the QLQ-C30 was invariant across cancer sites. Configural (same patterns of factor loadings), metric (equivalence of factor loadings) and scalar (equivalence of thresholds) invariance amongst the cancer site groups were assessed (N = 1,906) by comparing the fit of a model with these parameters freely estimated to a model where estimates were constrained to be equal for the corresponding items in each group. RESULTS: All groups exhibited good model fit except for the prostate group, which was excluded. Only 1 of 576 parameters was found to differ between primary sites: specifically, the first threshold of Item 1 in the breast cancer group exhibited non-invariance. In a post hoc analysis, several instances of non-invariance by treatment status (baseline, on-treatment, off-treatment) were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Given only one instance of non-invariance between cancer sites, there is a reason to be confident in the validity of conclusions drawn when comparing QLQ-C30 domain scores between different sites and when interpreting the scores of heterogeneous samples, although future research should assess the potential impact of confounding variables such as treatment and gender.
Authors: N W Scott; P M Fayers; N K Aaronson; A Bottomley; A de Graeff; M Groenvold; M Koller; M A Petersen; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-11-16 Impact factor: 4.147
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: N W Scott; P M Fayers; A Bottomley; N K Aaronson; A de Graeff; M Groenvold; M Koller; M A Petersen; M A G Sprangers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1993-03-03 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Chad M Gundy; Peter M Fayers; Mogens Groenvold; Morten Aa Petersen; Neil W Scott; Mirjam A G Sprangers; Galina Velikova; Neil K Aaronson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-12-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Bellinda L King-Kallimanis; Claartje L ter Hoeven; Hanneke C de Haes; Ellen M Smets; Caro C E Koning; Frans J Oort Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2011-12-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: M T King; D S J Costa; N K Aaronson; J E Brazier; D F Cella; P M Fayers; P Grimison; M Janda; G Kemmler; R Norman; A S Pickard; D Rowen; G Velikova; T A Young; R Viney Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2016-01-20 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Kathrin Sommer; Francesco Cottone; Neil K Aaronson; Peter Fayers; Paola Fazi; Gianantonio Rosti; Emanuele Angelucci; Gianluca Gaidano; Adriano Venditti; Maria Teresa Voso; Michele Baccarani; Marco Vignetti; Fabio Efficace Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Caterina Calderon; Pere J Ferrando; Urbano Lorenzo-Seva; Estrella Ferreira; Eun Mi Lee; Marta Oporto-Alonso; Berta M Obispo-Portero; Luka Mihic-Góngora; Adan Rodríguez-González; Paula Jiménez-Fonseca Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-12-20 Impact factor: 3.440
Authors: David C Buitenweg; Ilja L Bongers; Dike van de Mheen; Hans A M van Oers; Chijs Van Nieuwenhuizen Journal: Int J Methods Psychiatr Res Date: 2018-05-25 Impact factor: 4.035
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Jacobien M Kieffer; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Olga Husson; Natasja J H Raijmakers; John Gelissen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.147