Reliability, validity and responsiveness of the Mandarin (Simplified) Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-OH45 among cancer patients

Abstract

Purpose The goal of our study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and acceptability of the Mandarin (simplified) Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ‐OH45. Methods From October 2017 to February 2018, 393 cancer patients were enrolled from three different hospitals in China. A forward and backward translation was made to develop the Mandarin (simplified) Chinese version of EORTC QLQ‐OH15. The QLQ‐C30 and QLQ‐OH15 questionnaires (which we have assembled and named QLQ‐OH45 in this paper) were self‐administered. Results were statistically analysed using SPSS 21.0. The reliability and validity tests of the questionnaires were assessed by Cronbach's α coefficient, Pearson correlation test and Mann–Whitney U tests. Responsiveness to change was measured in an independent sample of patients with head and neck cancer undergoing surgery or radiotherapy or chemotherapy. Results An acceptable internal consistency reliability for most multiple‐item scales was demonstrated, as Cronbach's α coefficients were greater than 0.7 for most multiple‐item scales, excepting for cognitive functioning (0.36) and oral health‐related QoL functioning (0.55). All domain's test–retest reliability coefficients (r) was higher than 0.8. Multi‐trait scaling analysis showed good convergent and discriminant validity. A difference in the quality of life (QoL) between older (≥65 years) and younger (<65 years) groups of patients was showed by the known‐group comparisons. Low correlations were found between the scales of the QLQ‐OH15 and QLQ‐C30 in all areas. Conclusion The Mandarin (simplified) Chinese version of QLQ‐OH45 demonstrates satisfactory psychometric properties and can be used to measure the oral health‐related QoL (OHRQoL) for Chinese cancer patients.

Validity and reliability of the Chinese version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System adult profile-57 (PROMIS-57)

“…On the other hand, discriminant validity was examined by the correlation coefficient between each item and other domains. A higher correlation for each item with its own domain than that with other domains were indicators of satisfied convergent validity and discriminant validity [ 14 ].…”

Reminiscence therapy‐based care program relieves anxiety, depression, and improves quality of life in post‐operational non‐small cell lung cancer patients

“…QoL of patients was also assessed at M0, M3, M6, and M12 after initiation of study intervention, using European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30 Scale). 13,14 The QLQ-C30 included 30 items, covering five functional domains (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), three symptom domains (fatigue, pain, and nausea and vomiting), a global health domain, and six single domains. The first 28 items of the questionnaire used a 4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very much).…”

Temporal stability of quality of life assessments in cancer patients

“…As was to be expected, the coefficients of temporal stability were much smaller than those obtained in studies with time intervals of only a few days between measurement points. In the nine studies featuring time intervals between 1 day and 2 weeks in lengths 5 – 13 the stability coefficients of the 2-item global health/QoL scale were between 0.82 and 0.93, with the exception of one study that examined brain tumor patients. The averaged Pearson correlation our study found ( r = 0.45) for measurement periods between 3 and 12 months long means that only 20% ( r 2 = 0.202) of the variance of the t2 measurement can be explained by the t1 scores.…”

“…However, knowledge about the temporal stability of QoL scores over time periods longer than one month is very limited. Test–retest reliability is considered a quality criterion of questionnaires, and there are multiple studies on test–retest reliability that used time intervals of 1–2 days 5 – 8 , 3–4 days 9 , 10 or 1–2 weeks 11 – 13 . While these coefficients are relevant for assessing the reliability of the instruments, clinicians are also interested in the question of how well a QoL questionnaire score can predict a patients’ QoL several months later.…”