Chung-Ying Lin1, Jing-Shiang Hwang2, Wen-Chung Wang3, Wu-Wei Lai4, Wu-Chou Su5, Tzu-Yi Wu6, Grace Yao7, Jung-Der Wang8. 1. Department of Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Hong Kong. 2. Institute of Statistical Science, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan. 3. Department of Psychological Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong. 4. Department of Surgery, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine and Hospital, Taiwan. 5. Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan. 6. Institute of Economics, Academia Sinica, Taipei, Taiwan; Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. 7. Department of Psychology, College of Science, National Taiwan University, Taipei, Taiwan. Electronic address: kaiping@ntu.edu.tw. 8. Department of Internal Medicine, National Cheng Kung University College of Medicine and Hospital, Tainan, Taiwan; Department of Public Health, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan; Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, National Cheng Kung University Hospital, College of Medicine, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan, Taiwan. Electronic address: jdwang121@gmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is important for clinicians to evaluate how cancer survivors judge their sense of well-being, and WHOQOL-BREF may be a good tool for clinical use. However, at least three issues remain unresolved: (1) the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF for cancer patients are insufficient; (2) the scoring method used for WHOQOL-BREF needs to be clarify; (3) whether different types of cancer patients interpret the WHOQOL-BREF similarly. METHODS: We recruited 1000 outpatients with head/neck cancer, 1000 with colorectal cancer, 965 with liver cancer, 1438 with lung cancer and 1299 with gynecologic cancers in a medical center. Data analyses included Rasch models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The mean WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were between 13.34 and 14.77 among all participants. CFA supported construct validity; Rasch models revealed that almost all items were embedded in their expected domains and were interpreted similarly across five types of cancer patients; all correlation coefficients between Rasch scores and original domain scores were above 0.9. CONCLUSION: The linear relationship between Rasch scores and domain scores suggested that the current calculations for domain scores were applicable and without serious bias. Clinical practitioners may regularly collect and record the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores into electronic health records.
BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QoL) is important for clinicians to evaluate how cancer survivors judge their sense of well-being, and WHOQOL-BREF may be a good tool for clinical use. However, at least three issues remain unresolved: (1) the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF for cancerpatients are insufficient; (2) the scoring method used for WHOQOL-BREF needs to be clarify; (3) whether different types of cancerpatients interpret the WHOQOL-BREF similarly. METHODS: We recruited 1000 outpatients with head/neck cancer, 1000 with colorectal cancer, 965 with liver cancer, 1438 with lung cancer and 1299 with gynecologic cancers in a medical center. Data analyses included Rasch models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The mean WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were between 13.34 and 14.77 among all participants. CFA supported construct validity; Rasch models revealed that almost all items were embedded in their expected domains and were interpreted similarly across five types of cancerpatients; all correlation coefficients between Rasch scores and original domain scores were above 0.9. CONCLUSION: The linear relationship between Rasch scores and domain scores suggested that the current calculations for domain scores were applicable and without serious bias. Clinical practitioners may regularly collect and record the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores into electronic health records.
Authors: Kun-Chia Chang; Wen-Li Hou; Amir H Pakpour; Chung-Ying Lin; Mark D Griffiths Journal: Int J Ment Health Addict Date: 2020-07-11 Impact factor: 3.836
Authors: Hari Setyowibowo; Fredrick Dermawan Purba; Joke A M Hunfeld; Aulia Iskandarsyah; Sawitri S Sadarjoen; Jan Passchier; Marit Sijbrandij Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-07-19 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Ching-Ming Cheng; Chih-Cheng Chang; Jung-Der Wang; Kun-Chia Chang; Shuo-Yen Ting; Chung-Ying Lin Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2019-04-11 Impact factor: 3.390