Shan-Shan Yang1, Lei Chen1, Ying Liu2, Hai-Jun Lu3, Bo-Jie Huang4, Ai-Hua Lin5, Ying Sun1, Jun Ma1, Fang-Yun Xie1, Yan-Ping Mao6. 1. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. 2. Nursing Department, Jinan Seventh People's Hospital, Jinan, China. 3. Department of Radiation Oncology, the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao, China. 4. Department of Oncology, the First People's Hospital of Tianmen in Hubei Province, Tianmen, China. 5. Department of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. 6. Department of Radiation Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Collaborative Innovation Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangdong Key Laboratory of Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma Diagnosis and Therapy, 651 Dongfeng Road East, Guangzhou, 510060, People's Republic of China. maoyp@sysucc.org.cn.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) have not been assessed. Therefore, we aimed to assess its validity, reliability, and responsiveness. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Chinese version of the PRO-CTCAE and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) were distributed to 1580 patients from four cancer hospitals in China. Validity assessments included construct validity, measured by Pearson's correlations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and known-groups validity, measured by t-tests. The assessment of reliability included internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's ɑ, and test-retest reliability, measured by the intraclass correlation (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by standardized response means (SRMs). RESULTS: Data from 1555 patients who completed the instruments were analyzed. The correlations were high between PRO-CTCAE items and parallel QLQ-C30 symptom scales (r > 0.60, p < 0.001), except for fatigue (severity: r = 0.49). Moreover, CFA showed the PRO-CTCAE structure was a good fit with the data (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.046). Known-groups validity was also confirmed. Cronbach's ɑ of all item clusters were greater than 0.9 and the median test-retest reliability coefficients of the 38 items were 0.85 (range = 0.71-0.91). In addition, the SRMs of PRO-CTCAE items were greater than 0.8, indicating strong responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The simplified Chinese version of the PRO-CTCAE showed good reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
BACKGROUND: The psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) have not been assessed. Therefore, we aimed to assess its validity, reliability, and responsiveness. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A Chinese version of the PRO-CTCAE and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) were distributed to 1580 patients from four cancer hospitals in China. Validity assessments included construct validity, measured by Pearson's correlations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and known-groups validity, measured by t-tests. The assessment of reliability included internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's ɑ, and test-retest reliability, measured by the intraclass correlation (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by standardized response means (SRMs). RESULTS: Data from 1555 patients who completed the instruments were analyzed. The correlations were high between PRO-CTCAE items and parallel QLQ-C30 symptom scales (r > 0.60, p < 0.001), except for fatigue (severity: r = 0.49). Moreover, CFA showed the PRO-CTCAE structure was a good fit with the data (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.046). Known-groups validity was also confirmed. Cronbach's ɑ of all item clusters were greater than 0.9 and the median test-retest reliability coefficients of the 38 items were 0.85 (range = 0.71-0.91). In addition, the SRMs of PRO-CTCAE items were greater than 0.8, indicating strong responsiveness. CONCLUSION: The simplified Chinese version of the PRO-CTCAE showed good reliability, validity, and responsiveness.
Authors: Amylou C Dueck; Tito R Mendoza; Sandra A Mitchell; Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen M Castro; Lauren J Rogak; Thomas M Atkinson; Antonia V Bennett; Andrea M Denicoff; Ann M O'Mara; Yuelin Li; Steven B Clauser; Donna M Bryant; James D Bearden; Theresa A Gillis; Jay K Harness; Robert D Siegel; Diane B Paul; Charles S Cleeland; Deborah Schrag; Jeff A Sloan; Amy P Abernethy; Deborah W Bruner; Lori M Minasian; Ethan Basch Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Massimo Di Maio; Ciro Gallo; Natasha B Leighl; Maria Carmela Piccirillo; Gennaro Daniele; Francesco Nuzzo; Cesare Gridelli; Vittorio Gebbia; Fortunato Ciardiello; Sabino De Placido; Anna Ceribelli; Adolfo G Favaretto; Andrea de Matteis; Ronald Feld; Charles Butts; Jane Bryce; Simona Signoriello; Alessandro Morabito; Gaetano Rocco; Francesco Perrone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-01-26 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jennifer L Hay; Thomas M Atkinson; Bryce B Reeve; Sandra A Mitchell; Tito R Mendoza; Gordon Willis; Lori M Minasian; Steven B Clauser; Andrea Denicoff; Ann O'Mara; Alice Chen; Antonia V Bennett; Diane B Paul; Joshua Gagne; Lauren Rogak; Laura Sit; Vish Viswanath; Deborah Schrag; Ethan Basch Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-07-20 Impact factor: 4.147