Scoring based on item response theory did not alter the measurement ability of EORTC QLQ-C30 scales

Petersen, Morten Aa.; Grøenvold, Mogens; Aaronson, Neil K.; Brenne, Elisabeth; Fayers, Peter; Nielsen, Jesper; Sprangers, Mirjam A. G.; Bjørner, Jakob Bue

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.02.008

Cited by 16 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…IRT is a relative new method to assess questionnaires. Although we wanted to include research using IRT techniques to evaluate measurement properties in CRF questionnaires, we could only find two studies [45,54]. One study [54] compared the conventional sum scoring used in the traditional psychometric methods with an IRT-based scoring in the assessment of a fatigue questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30 FA).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality criteria and user-friendliness in self-reported questionnaires on cancer-related fatigue: a review

Agasi-Idenburg

Velthuis

Wittink

2010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality criteria and user-friendliness in self-reported questionnaires on cancer-related fatigue: a review

Agasi-Idenburg

Velthuis

Wittink

2010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore pseudo-DIF is much more of a problem than for the longer scales more common in other applications such as educational testing. The use of item response theory scoring in logistic regression DIF analyses has been suggested to avoid this issue [12] but we chose to use unweighted scale scoring as this is the standard method used for scoring the EORTC QLQ-C30 [27].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30 is one of the most widely used quality of life instruments for cancer patients. The aim of this study was to assess whether there were linguistic differences in the way an international sample answered the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Thirteen translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30, representing 22 countries, were investigated using a database of 27,891 respondents, incorporating 103 separate studies. Differential item functioning (DIF) analyses were conducted using logistic regression to identify items which, after controlling for subscale, were answered differently by language of administration. Both uniform and non-uniform DIF were assessed. Although most languages showed similar results to English, at least one instance of statistically significant DIF was identified for each translation, and a few of these differences were large. In some cases, the patterns were supported by the results of qualitative interviews with bilingual people. Although, overall, there appeared to be good linguistic equivalence for most of the EORTC QLQ-C30 items, several scales showed strongly discrepant results for some translations. Some of these effects are large enough to impact on the results of clinical trials. Based on our experience in this study, we suggest that validation of translations of health-related quality of life instruments should include exploration of DIF.

show abstract

“…As indicated in the EORTC manual (http://groups.eortc.be/qol/ documentation_manuals.htm), the patients' individual raw score of each subscale of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was calculated as the sum and the mean of the available items for that scale [37,40]. All subscale responses were linearly converted to 0-100 scales.…”

Section: Data Handling and Statistical Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy outcome measures standardization study: from consensus to the first validity and reliability findings

Cavaletti¹,

Cornblath²,

Merkies³

et al. 2013

Annals of Oncology

255

218

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a debilitating and dose-limiting complication of cancer treatment. Thus far, the impact of CIPN has not been studied in a systematic clinimetric manner. The objective of the study was to select outcome measures for CIPN evaluation and to establish their validity and reproducibility in a cross-sectional multicenter study. Patients and methods:After literature review and a consensus meeting among experts, face/content validity were obtained for the following selected scales: the National Cancer Institute-Common Toxicity Criteria (NCI-CTC), the Total Neuropathy Score clinical version (TNSc), the modified Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) group sensory sumscore (mISS), the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30, and CIPN20 quality-of-life measures. A total of 281 patients with stable CIPN were examined. Validity (correlation) and reliability studies were carried out.Results: Good inter-/intra-observer scores were obtained for the TNSc, mISS, and NCI-CTC sensory/motor subscales. Test-retest values were also good for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and CIPN20. Acceptable validity scores were obtained through the correlation among the measures. Conclusion:Good validity and reliability scores were demonstrated for the set of selected impairment and quality-of-life outcome measures in CIPN. Future studies are planned to investigate the responsiveness aspects of these measures.

show abstract

Scoring based on item response theory did not alter the measurement ability of EORTC QLQ-C30 scales

Cited by 16 publications

References 22 publications

Quality criteria and user-friendliness in self-reported questionnaires on cancer-related fatigue: a review

Quality criteria and user-friendliness in self-reported questionnaires on cancer-related fatigue: a review

Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses

The chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy outcome measures standardization study: from consensus to the first validity and reliability findings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About