Morten Aa Petersen1, Neil K Aaronson2, Wei-Chu Chie3, Thierry Conroy4, Anna Costantini5, Eva Hammerlid6, Marianne J Hjermstad7,8, Stein Kaasa9, Jon H Loge8,10, Galina Velikova11, Teresa Young12, Mogens Groenvold13,14. 1. The Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark. Morten.Aagaard.Petersen@regionh.dk. 2. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Public Health, Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public Health, National Taiwan University, Taipei City, Taiwan. 4. Medical Oncology Department, Institut de cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy, France. 5. Psychoncology Unit, Sant'Andrea Hospital, Faculty of Medicine and Psychology, Sapienza University, Rome, Italy. 6. Department of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Göteborg University, Göteborg, Sweden. 7. Regional Centre for Excellence in Palliative Care, Department of Oncology, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 8. European Palliative Care Research Centre, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway. 9. Palliative Medicine Unit, University Hospital of Trondheim, Trondheim, Norway. 10. National Resource Centre for Late Effects After Cancer Treatment, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway. 11. Cancer Research UK Centre, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. 12. Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Middlesex, UK. 13. The Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, University of Copenhagen, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400, Copenhagen, NV, Denmark. 14. Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes should ideally be adapted to the individual patient while maintaining comparability of scores across patients. This is achievable using computerized adaptive testing (CAT). The aim here was to develop an item bank for CAT measurement of the pain domain as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. METHODS: The development process consisted of four steps: (1) literature search, (2) formulation of new items and expert evaluations, (3) pretesting and (4) field-testing and psychometric analyses for the final selection of items. RESULTS: In step 1, we identified 337 pain items from the literature. Twenty-nine new items fitting the QLQ-C30 item style were formulated in step 2 that were reduced to 26 items by expert evaluations. Based on interviews with 31 patients from Denmark, France and the UK, the list was further reduced to 21 items in step 3. In phase 4, responses were obtained from 1103 cancer patients from five countries. Psychometric evaluations showed that 16 items could be retained in a unidimensional item bank. Evaluations indicated that use of the CAT measure may reduce sample size requirements with 15-25% compared to using the QLQ-C30 pain scale. CONCLUSIONS: We have established an item bank of 16 items suitable for CAT measurement of pain. While being backward compatible with the QLQ-C30, the new item bank will significantly improve measurement precision of pain. We recommend initiating CAT measurement by screening for pain using the two original QLQ-C30 pain items. The EORTC pain CAT is currently available for "experimental" purposes.
PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes should ideally be adapted to the individual patient while maintaining comparability of scores across patients. This is achievable using computerized adaptive testing (CAT). The aim here was to develop an item bank for CAT measurement of the pain domain as measured by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. METHODS: The development process consisted of four steps: (1) literature search, (2) formulation of new items and expert evaluations, (3) pretesting and (4) field-testing and psychometric analyses for the final selection of items. RESULTS: In step 1, we identified 337 pain items from the literature. Twenty-nine new items fitting the QLQ-C30 item style were formulated in step 2 that were reduced to 26 items by expert evaluations. Based on interviews with 31 patients from Denmark, France and the UK, the list was further reduced to 21 items in step 3. In phase 4, responses were obtained from 1103 cancer patients from five countries. Psychometric evaluations showed that 16 items could be retained in a unidimensional item bank. Evaluations indicated that use of the CAT measure may reduce sample size requirements with 15-25% compared to using the QLQ-C30 pain scale. CONCLUSIONS: We have established an item bank of 16 items suitable for CAT measurement of pain. While being backward compatible with the QLQ-C30, the new item bank will significantly improve measurement precision of pain. We recommend initiating CAT measurement by screening for pain using the two original QLQ-C30 pain items. The EORTC pain CAT is currently available for "experimental" purposes.
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold; Jakob B Bjorner; Neil Aaronson; Thierry Conroy; Ann Cull; Peter Fayers; Marianne Hjermstad; Mirjam Sprangers; Marianne Sullivan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Herbert Fliege; Janine Becker; Otto B Walter; Jakob B Bjorner; Burghard F Klapp; Matthias Rose Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold; Neil K Aaronson; Wei-Chu Chie; Thierry Conroy; Anna Costantini; Peter Fayers; Jorunn Helbostad; Bernhard Holzner; Stein Kaasa; Susanne Singer; Galina Velikova; Teresa Young Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2010-10-23 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Mogens Groenvold; Neil K Aaronson; Wei-Chu Chie; Thierry Conroy; Anna Costantini; Peter Fayers; Jorunn Helbostad; Bernhard Holzner; Stein Kaasa; Susanne Singer; Galina Velikova; Teresa Young Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2010-03-16 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Morten Aa Petersen; Johannes M Giesinger; Bernhard Holzner; Juan I Arraras; Thierry Conroy; Eva-Maria Gamper; Madeleine T King; Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw; Teresa Young; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-02-28 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: Anna Thit Johnsen; Morten A Petersen; Claire F Snyder; Lise Pedersen; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Linda Dirven; Mogens Groenvold; Martin J B Taphoorn; Thierry Conroy; Krzysztof A Tomaszewski; Teresa Young; Morten Aa Petersen Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Christoph A Fink; Mirco Friedrich; Pia-Elena Frey; Lukas Rädeker; Alexander Leuck; Thomas Bruckner; Manuel Feisst; Solveig Tenckhoff; Christina Klose; Colette Dörr-Harim; Jens Neudecker; André L Mihaljevic Journal: BMC Surg Date: 2018-10-29 Impact factor: 2.102