J L Sharp1, K Gough2,3, M C Pascoe2,4, A Drosdowsky2, V T Chang5,6, P Schofield7,8. 1. Department of Statistics, Data Science, and Epidemiology, Swinburne University of Technology, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia. 2. Department of Cancer Experiences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia. 3. Department of Nursing, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, 161 Barry Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. 4. The Institute for Health and Sport (IHES), Victoria University, Ballarat Rd, Footscray, VIC, 3011, Australia. 5. Department of Medicine, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA. 6. Section of Hematology Oncology, Veterans Affairs New Jersey Health Care System, East Orange, NJ, 07018, USA. 7. Department of Cancer Experiences, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, 305 Grattan St, Melbourne, VIC, 3000, Australia. pschofield@swin.edu.au. 8. Department of Psychological Sciences, Swinburne University, PO Box 218, Hawthorn, VIC, 3122, Australia. pschofield@swin.edu.au.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF) is a widely used symptom assessment instrument. Patients who self-complete the MSAS-SF have difficulty following the two-part response format, resulting in incorrectly completed responses. We describe modifications to the response format to improve useability, and rational scoring rules for incorrectly completed items. METHODS: The modified MSAS-SF was completed by 311 women in our Peer and Nurse support Trial to Assist women in Gynaecological Oncology; the PeNTAGOn study. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise completion of the modified MSAS-SF, and provide symptom statistics before and after applying the rational scoring rules. Spearman's correlations with the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were assessed. RESULTS: Correct completion of the modified MSAS-SF items ranged from 91.5 to 98.7%. The rational scoring rules increased the percentage of useable responses on average 4% across all symptoms. MSAS-SF item statistics were similar with and without the scoring rules. The pattern of correlations with FACT-G and HADS was compatible with prior research. CONCLUSION: The modified MSAS-SF was useable for self-completion and responses demonstrated validity. The rational scoring rules can minimise loss of data from incorrectly completed responses. Further investigation is recommended.
PURPOSE: The Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale Short Form (MSAS-SF) is a widely used symptom assessment instrument. Patients who self-complete the MSAS-SF have difficulty following the two-part response format, resulting in incorrectly completed responses. We describe modifications to the response format to improve useability, and rational scoring rules for incorrectly completed items. METHODS: The modified MSAS-SF was completed by 311 women in our Peer and Nurse support Trial to Assist women in Gynaecological Oncology; the PeNTAGOn study. Descriptive statistics were used to summarise completion of the modified MSAS-SF, and provide symptom statistics before and after applying the rational scoring rules. Spearman's correlations with the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) were assessed. RESULTS: Correct completion of the modified MSAS-SF items ranged from 91.5 to 98.7%. The rational scoring rules increased the percentage of useable responses on average 4% across all symptoms. MSAS-SF item statistics were similar with and without the scoring rules. The pattern of correlations with FACT-G and HADS was compatible with prior research. CONCLUSION: The modified MSAS-SF was useable for self-completion and responses demonstrated validity. The rational scoring rules can minimise loss of data from incorrectly completed responses. Further investigation is recommended.
Entities:
Keywords:
Gynaecological cancer; Psychological distress; Quality of life; Symptom assessment
Authors: Alice B Kornblith; Jeannette M Dowell; James E Herndon; Beverly J Engelman; Susan Bauer-Wu; Eric J Small; Vicki A Morrison; James Atkins; Harvey Jay Cohen; Jimmie C Holland Journal: Cancer Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Juan José Dapueto; María del Carmen Abreu; Carla Francolino; Roberto Levin Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2013-12-02 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Colin A Espie; Leanne Fleming; James Cassidy; Leslie Samuel; Lynne M Taylor; Craig A White; Neil J Douglas; Heather M Engleman; Heidi-Louise Kelly; James Paul Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2008-06-30 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Wendy Wing Tak Lam; Chi Ching Law; Yiu Tung Fu; Kam Hung Wong; Victor T Chang; Richard Fielding Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2008-04-22 Impact factor: 3.612