Daniel S J Costa1, Vanessa Loh2, Damian P Birney2, Haryana M Dhillon3, Joanna E Fardell4, Danielle Gessler2, Janette L Vardy5. 1. Pain Management Research Institute, Royal North Shore Hospital, St Leonards, New South Wales, Australia; Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. Electronic address: daniel.costa@sydney.edu.au. 2. School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 3. Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-Making, School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia. 4. Behavioural Sciences Unit, Kids Cancer Centre, Sydney Children's Hospital School of Women's and Children's Health, University of New South Wales, New South Wales, Australia. 5. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia; Concord Cancer Centre, Concord Repatriation General Hospital, Concord, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive (FACT-Cog) version 3 questionnaire is designed to assess perceived cognitive function and impact on quality of life in cancer patients. OBJECTIVES: We examined the factor structure of the FACT-Cog version 3 in samples of cancer patients, older adults, and students. METHODS: Data from three populations were sourced. Cancer patient data (N = 158) came from two studies, one evaluating a web-based cognitive training program, and the other evaluating symptoms in patients receiving chemotherapy. The older adult sample (N = 477) was commercial brain training users in the general population. The student sample (N = 154) came from a study examining the relation between cognitive test performance and perceived cognitive function. RESULTS: The patient sample conformed to the traditional four-factor structure (impairments, abilities, noticeability, and quality of life), with some support for separating the broad impairment/ability factors into specific cognitive domains. The older adult sample was best described using both impairments/abilities and specific cognitive domains. The student sample suggested two impairment/ability factors but separation of concentration/acuity and memory/verbal impairment items. CONCLUSION: The FACT-Cog can be used in populations other than cancer patients, with modifications to the scoring system. Even when used with cancer patients, it is worth considering scoring specific cognitive domains separately.
CONTEXT: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive (FACT-Cog) version 3 questionnaire is designed to assess perceived cognitive function and impact on quality of life in cancerpatients. OBJECTIVES: We examined the factor structure of the FACT-Cog version 3 in samples of cancerpatients, older adults, and students. METHODS: Data from three populations were sourced. Cancerpatient data (N = 158) came from two studies, one evaluating a web-based cognitive training program, and the other evaluating symptoms in patients receiving chemotherapy. The older adult sample (N = 477) was commercial brain training users in the general population. The student sample (N = 154) came from a study examining the relation between cognitive test performance and perceived cognitive function. RESULTS: The patient sample conformed to the traditional four-factor structure (impairments, abilities, noticeability, and quality of life), with some support for separating the broad impairment/ability factors into specific cognitive domains. The older adult sample was best described using both impairments/abilities and specific cognitive domains. The student sample suggested two impairment/ability factors but separation of concentration/acuity and memory/verbal impairment items. CONCLUSION: The FACT-Cog can be used in populations other than cancerpatients, with modifications to the scoring system. Even when used with cancerpatients, it is worth considering scoring specific cognitive domains separately.
Authors: Mackenzi Pergolotti; Nicolò Matteo Luca Battisti; Lynne Padgett; Alix G Sleight; Maya Abdallah; Robin Newman; Kathleen Van Dyk; Kelley R Covington; Grant R Williams; Frederiek van den Bos; YaoYao Pollock; Elizabeth A Salerno; Allison Magnuson; Isabella F Gattás-Vernaglia; Tim A Ahles Journal: J Geriatr Oncol Date: 2019-10-14 Impact factor: 3.599
Authors: Deborah J Bowen; Eileen H Shinn; Sophie Gregrowski; Gretchen Kimmick; Laura S Dominici; Elizabeth S Frank; Karen Lisa Smith; Gabrielle Rocque; Kathryn J Ruddy; Teri Pollastro; Michelle Melisko; Tarah J Ballinger; Oluwadamilola M Fayanju; Antonio C Wolff Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-11-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Xingtao Zhou; Brent J Small; Jaeil Ahn; Wanting Zhai; Tim Ahles; Martine Extermann; Deena Graham; Paul B Jacobsen; Heather Jim; Brenna C McDonald; Sunita J Patel; James C Root; Andrew J Saykin; Harvey Jay Cohen; Judith E Carroll Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Annemarie C Eggen; Nadine M Richard; Ingeborg Bosma; Mathilde Jalving; Natasha B Leighl; Geoffrey Liu; Kenneth Mah; Randa Higazy; David B Shultz; Anna K L Reyners; Gary Rodin; Kim Edelstein Journal: Neurooncol Pract Date: 2021-09-07