Johannes M Giesinger1, Jacobien M Kieffer1, Peter M Fayers2, Mogens Groenvold3, Morten Aa Petersen4, Neil W Scott5, Mirjam A G Sprangers6, Galina Velikova7, Neil K Aaronson8. 1. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 2. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Road, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, UK; Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Postboke 8905, N-7491 Trondheim, Norway. 3. The Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Øster Farimagsgade 5, 1014 Copenhagen, Denmark. 4. The Research Unit, Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bispebjerg Bakke 23, 2400 Copenhagen, Denmark. 5. Institute of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill Road, AB25 2ZD Aberdeen, UK. 6. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 7. Leeds Institute of Cancer and Pathology, St James's Institute of Oncology, University of Leeds, Beckett Street, LS9 7TF Leeds, UK. 8. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: n.aaronson@nki.nl.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the higher order measurement structure of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), with the aim of generating a summary score. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using pretreatment QLQ-C30 data (N = 3,282), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test seven previously evaluated higher order models. We compared the summary score(s) derived from the best performing higher order model with the original QLQ-C30 scale scores, using tumor stage, performance status, and change over time (N = 244) as grouping variables. RESULTS: Although all models showed acceptable fit, we continued in the interest of parsimony with known-groups validity and responsiveness analyses using a summary score derived from the single higher order factor model. The validity and responsiveness of this QLQ-C30 summary score was equal to, and in many cases superior to the original, underlying QLQ-C30 scale scores. CONCLUSION: Our results provide empirical support for a measurement model for the QLQ-C30 yielding a single summary score. The availability of this summary score can avoid problems with potential type I errors that arise because of multiple testing when making comparisons based on the 15 outcomes generated by this questionnaire and may reduce sample size requirements for health-related quality of life studies using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire when an overall summary score is a relevant primary outcome.
OBJECTIVE: To further evaluate the higher order measurement structure of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), with the aim of generating a summary score. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Using pretreatment QLQ-C30 data (N = 3,282), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test seven previously evaluated higher order models. We compared the summary score(s) derived from the best performing higher order model with the original QLQ-C30 scale scores, using tumor stage, performance status, and change over time (N = 244) as grouping variables. RESULTS: Although all models showed acceptable fit, we continued in the interest of parsimony with known-groups validity and responsiveness analyses using a summary score derived from the single higher order factor model. The validity and responsiveness of this QLQ-C30 summary score was equal to, and in many cases superior to the original, underlying QLQ-C30 scale scores. CONCLUSION: Our results provide empirical support for a measurement model for the QLQ-C30 yielding a single summary score. The availability of this summary score can avoid problems with potential type I errors that arise because of multiple testing when making comparisons based on the 15 outcomes generated by this questionnaire and may reduce sample size requirements for health-related quality of life studies using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire when an overall summary score is a relevant primary outcome.
Authors: Andreas Hinz; Joachim Weis; Hermann Faller; Elmar Brähler; Martin Härter; Monika Keller; Holger Schulz; Karl Wegscheider; Uwe Koch; Kristina Geue; Heide Götze; Anja Mehnert Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Janneke van Roij; Heidi Fransen; Lonneke van de Poll-Franse; Myrte Zijlstra; Natasja Raijmakers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-02-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Thomas M Atkinson; Jennifer L Hay; Amylou C Dueck; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Lauren J Rogak; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-11-10 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Olga Husson; Belle H de Rooij; Jacobien Kieffer; Simone Oerlemans; Floortje Mols; Neil K Aaronson; Winette T A van der Graaf; Lonneke V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-10-31
Authors: Anna Thit Johnsen; Morten Aagaard Petersen; Per Sjøgren; Lise Pedersen; Mette Asbjoern Neergaard; Anette Damkier; Christian Gluud; Peter Fayers; Jane Lindschou; Annette S Strömgren; Jan Bjoern Nielsen; Irene J Higginson; Mogens Groenvold Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2019-08-13 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Natasja J H Raijmakers; M Zijlstra; J van Roij; O Husson; S Oerlemans; L V van de Poll-Franse Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.603