19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Validating and Improving the Reliability of the EORTC QLQ-C30 Using a Multidimensional Rasch Model

      , , , ,  
      Value in Health
      Elsevier BV

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire (QLQ-C30): validity and reliability when analysed with patients treated with palliative radiotherapy.

          The EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) is designed to measure cancer patients' physical, psychological and social functions. The questionnaire is composed of multi-item scales and single items. 247 patients completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 before palliative radiotherapy and 181 after palliative radiotherapy. The questionnaire was well accepted with a high completion rate in the present patient population consisting of advanced cancer patients with short life expectancy. In addition, the questionnaire was found to be useful to detect the effect of palliative radiotherapy over time. The scale reliability was excellent for all scales except the role functioning scale. Excellent criterion validity was found for the emotional functioning scale where it was correlated with GHQ-20. Performance of the questionnaire was improved after the second evaluation as compared with the first. The present study shows that the EORTC QLQ-C30 is found to be practical and valid in measuring quality of life in patients with advanced disease.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Patient self-reports of symptoms and clinician ratings as predictors of overall cancer survival.

            The National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) reporting system is widely used by clinicians to measure patient symptoms in clinical trials. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer's Quality of Life core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) enables cancer patients to rate their symptoms related to their quality of life. We examined the extent to which patient and clinician symptom scoring and their agreement could contribute to the estimation of overall survival among cancer patients. We analyzed baseline data regarding six cancer symptoms (pain, fatigue, vomiting, nausea, diarrhea, and constipation) from a total of 2279 cancer patients from 14 closed EORTC randomized controlled trials. In each trial that was selected for retrospective pooled analysis, both clinician and patient symptom scoring were reported simultaneously at study entry. We assessed the extent of agreement between clinician vs patient symptom scoring using the Spearman and kappa correlation statistics. After adjusting for age, sex, performance status, cancer severity, and cancer site, we used Harrell concordance index (C-index) to compare the potential for clinician-reported and/or patient-reported symptom scores to improve the accuracy of Cox models to predict overall survival. All P values are from two-sided tests. Patient-reported scores for some symptoms, particularly fatigue, did differ from clinician-reported scores. For each of the six symptoms that we assessed at baseline, both clinician and patient scorings contributed independently and positively to the predictive accuracy of survival prognostication. Cox models of overall survival that considered both patient and clinician scores gained more predictive accuracy than models that considered clinician scores alone for each of four symptoms: fatigue (C-index = .67 with both patient and clinician data vs C-index = .63 with clinician data only; P <.001), vomiting (C-index = .64 vs .62; P = .01), nausea (C-index = .65 vs .62; P < .001), and constipation (C-index = .62 vs .61; P = .01). Patients provide a subjective measure of symptom severity that complements clinician scoring in predicting overall survival.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Item Response Theory and Classical Test Theory: An Empirical Comparison of their Item/Person Statistics

              X G Fan (1998)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Value in Health
                Value in Health
                Elsevier BV
                10983015
                July 2013
                July 2013
                : 16
                : 5
                : 848-854
                Article
                10.1016/j.jval.2013.05.004
                23947980
                fc1d1cf3-b512-41b4-8075-cbd69b798a4a
                © 2013

                http://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

                History

                Comments

                Comment on this article