Linda Dirven1, Martin Jb Taphoorn1, Mogens Groenvold1, Esther Jj Habets1, Neil K Aaronson1, Thierry Conroy1, Jaap C Reijneveld1, Teresa Young1, Morten Aa Petersen1. 1. Department of Neurology, Leiden University Medical Center, PO BOX 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, the Netherlands (L.D., M.J.B.T.); Department of Neurology, Medical Center Haaglanden, PO BOX 432, 2501 CK The Hague, the Netherlands (M.J.B.T., E.J.J.H.); Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Bakke 23 DK-2400 Copenhagen NV, Denmark(M.G., M.A.P.); Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, PO BOX 90203, 1006 BE Amsterdam, the Netherlands (N.K.A.); Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine 6, Avenue de Bourgogne - CS 30519 54519 Vandoeuvre-lès-Nancy Cedex, France (T.C.); Department of Neurology, VU University Medical Center, PO BOX 7057, 1007 MB Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.C.R.); Department of Neurology, Academic Medical Center, PO BOX 22660, 1100 DD Amsterdam, the Netherlands (J.C.R.); Lynda Jackson Macmillan Centre, Mount Vernon Hospital, Northwood, Middlesex HA6 2RN, UK (T.Y.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group is developing computerized adaptive testing (CAT) versions of each scale of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). This study aims to develop an item bank for the EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning scale, which can be used for CAT. METHODS: The complete developmental approach comprised four phases: (I) conceptualization and literature search, (II) operationalization, (III) pretesting, and (IV) field-testing. This paper describes phases I-III.I) A literature search was performed to identify self-report instruments and items measuring cognitive complaints on concentration and memory. II) A multistep item-selection procedure was applied to select and generate items that were relevant and compatible with the 'QLQ-C30 item style.' III) Cancer patients from different countries evaluated the item list for wording (ie, whether items were difficult, confusing, annoying, upsetting or intrusive), and whether relevant issues were missing. RESULTS: A list of 439 items was generated by the literature search. In the multistep item-selection procedure, these items were evaluated for relevance, redundancy, clarity, and response format, resulting in an list of 45 items. A total of 32 patients evaluated this item list in the pretesting phase, resulting in a preliminary list of 44 items. CONCLUSION: Phase I-III resulted in an item list of 44 items measuring self-reported cognitive complaints that was endorsed by international experts and cancer patients in several countries. This list will be evaluated for its psychometric characteristics in phase IV.
BACKGROUND: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Group is developing computerized adaptive testing (CAT) versions of each scale of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). This study aims to develop an item bank for the EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning scale, which can be used for CAT. METHODS: The complete developmental approach comprised four phases: (I) conceptualization and literature search, (II) operationalization, (III) pretesting, and (IV) field-testing. This paper describes phases I-III.I) A literature search was performed to identify self-report instruments and items measuring cognitive complaints on concentration and memory. II) A multistep item-selection procedure was applied to select and generate items that were relevant and compatible with the 'QLQ-C30 item style.' III) Cancer patients from different countries evaluated the item list for wording (ie, whether items were difficult, confusing, annoying, upsetting or intrusive), and whether relevant issues were missing. RESULTS: A list of 439 items was generated by the literature search. In the multistep item-selection procedure, these items were evaluated for relevance, redundancy, clarity, and response format, resulting in an list of 45 items. A total of 32 patients evaluated this item list in the pretesting phase, resulting in a preliminary list of 44 items. CONCLUSION: Phase I-III resulted in an item list of 44 items measuring self-reported cognitive complaints that was endorsed by international experts and cancer patients in several countries. This list will be evaluated for its psychometric characteristics in phase IV.
Entities:
Keywords:
cancer; cognitive functioning; computerized adaptive testing; health-related quality of life; item bank
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: M Klein; J J Heimans; N K Aaronson; H M van der Ploeg; J Grit; M Muller; T J Postma; J J Mooij; R H Boerman; G N Beute; G J Ossenkoppele; G W van Imhoff; A W Dekker; J Jolles; B J Slotman; H Struikmans; M J B Taphoorn Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-11-02 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: T S Armstrong; T Mendoza; I Gning; I Gring; C Coco; M Z Cohen; L Eriksen; Ming-Ann Hsu; M R Gilbert; C Cleeland Journal: J Neurooncol Date: 2006-04-06 Impact factor: 4.130
Authors: M Klein; M J Taphoorn; J J Heimans; H M van der Ploeg; W P Vandertop; E F Smit; S Leenstra; C A Tulleken; W Boogerd; J S Belderbos; W Cleijne; N K Aaronson Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2001-10-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Cay Anderson-Hanley; Marne L Sherman; Raine Riggs; V Bede Agocha; Bruce E Compas Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2003-11 Impact factor: 2.892