Psychometric evaluation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 for HRQOL assessment in prostate cancer patients

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Chih-Hung Chang³  Yi-Chun Yeh⁶  Tsai-Chung Li⁶  Jong-Yi Wang²  Hsueh-Chun Lin¹  Hsi-Chin Wu⁵  Wen-Miin Liang⁶  Yu-Jun Chang⁴ 

[1] Department of Health Risk Management, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Department of Health Services Administration, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Buehler Center on Aging, Health & Society, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 750 N. Lake Shore Drive, Suite 601, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA;Epidemiology and Biostatistics Center, Changhua Christian Hospital, Changhua, Taiwan;School of Medicine, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan;Biostatistics Center, China Medical University, Taichung, Taiwan

关键词: Item response theory;    Rasch analysis;    Prostate cancer;    Health-related quality of life;    EORTC QLQ-PR25;   

Others  :  825271
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-10-96

 received in 2012-02-25, accepted in 2012-08-01,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Objective

To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Taiwan Chinese Version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaire for patients with prostate cancer.

Methods

135 prostate cancer patients were recruited in the urology outpatient clinic of a university teaching hospital. Each patient completed the EORTC QLQ-PR25 at every clinic visit between 2004 and 2008, totaling 633 assessments. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were used to evaluate the domain- and item-level psychometric properties.

Results

The results supported the unidimensionality of each of the four EORTC QLQ-PR25 domains (urinary, bowel, and hormonal-treatment-related symptoms, and sexual functioning). Item calibrations for each domain were found invariant across the three assessment time periods. The item-person maps showed 71.3% of item coverage for the urinary symptoms domain and 13–42.7% for the other three domains.

Conclusions

The Taiwan Chinese Version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 questionnaire is reliable and can be used to measure HRQOL over time. Adding new items to each domain may improve its clinical content coverage and measurement precision.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Chang et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Crawford ED: Epidemiology of prostate cancer. Urology 2003, 62:3-12.
• [2]Matsuda T, Saika K: Comparison of time trends in prostate cancer incidence (1973 1997) in East Asia, Europe and USA, from Cancer Incidence in Five Continents Vols IV VIII. Jpn J Clin Oncol 2007, 37:556-557.
• [3]Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C: Cancer Registry Annual Report. In Book Cancer Registry Annual Report (Editor ed.^eds. Department of Health, Executive Yuan, Taiwan, R.O.C; 2011.
• [4]Damber JE, Aus G: Prostate cancer. Lancet 2008, 371:1710-1721.
• [5]Bacon CG, Giovannucci E, Testa M, Glass TA, Kawachi I: The association of treatment-related symptoms with quality-of-life outcomes for localized prostate carcinoma patients. Cancer 2002, 94:862-871.
• [6]Jayadevappa R, Johnson JC, Chhatre S, Wein AJ, Malkowicz SB: Ethnic variation in return to baseline values of patient-reported outcomes in older prostate cancer patients. Cancer 2007, 109:2229-2238.
• [7]Flaherty E: Using pain-rating scales with older adults. Am J Nurs 2008, 108:40-47. quiz 48
• [8]Lai JS, Cella D, Dineen K, Bode R, Von Roenn J, Gershon RC, Shevrin D: An item bank was created to improve the measurement of cancer-related fatigue. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:190-197.
• [9]van Andel G, Bottomley A, Fossa SD, Efficace F, Coens C, Guerif S, Kynaston H, Gontero P, Thalmann G, Akdas A, et al.: An international field study of the EORTC QLQ-PR25: a questionnaire for assessing the health-related quality of life of patients with prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:2418-2424.
• [10]Arraras JI, Villafranca E, Arias de la Vega F, Romero P, Rico M, Vila M, Asin G, Chicata V, Dominguez MA, Lainez N, et al.: The EORTC quality of life questionnaire for patients with prostate cancer: EORTC QLQ-PR25. Validation study for Spanish patients. Clin Transl Oncol 2009, 11:160-164.
• [11]Borghede G, Karlsson J, Sullivan M: Quality of life in patients with prostatic cancer: results from a Swedish population study. J Urol 1997, 158:1477-1485. discussion 1486
• [12]Chie WC, Hong RL, Lai CC, Ting LL, Hsu MM: Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Qual Life Res 2003, 12:93-98.
• [13]Chie WC, Chang KJ, Huang CS, Kuo WH: Quality of life of breast cancer patients in Taiwan: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-BR23. Psychooncology 2003, 12:729-735.
• [14]Chie WC, Yang CH, Hsu C, Yang PC: Quality of life of lung cancer patients: validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Qual Life Res 2004, 13:257-262.
• [15]Huang CC, Lien HH, Sung YC, Liu HT, Chie WC: Quality of life of patients with gastric cancer in Taiwan: validation and clinical application of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-STO22. Psychooncology 2007, 16:945-949.
• [16]Chie WC, Yu CC, Yu HJ: Reliability and validity of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-PR25 in assessing quality of life of prostate cancer patients. Urol Sci 2010, 21:118-125.
• [17]Tennant A, McKenna SP, Hagell P: Application of Rasch analysis in the development and application of quality of life instruments. Value Health 2004, 7(Suppl 1):S22-26.
• [18]Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP: Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care 2000, 38:II28-42.
• [19]Reeve BB: An introduction to modern measurement theory. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda; 2002.
• [20]Gothwal VK, Wright TA, Lamoureux EL, Pesudovs K: Using Rasch analysis to revisit the validity of the Cataract TyPE Spec instrument for measuring cataract surgery outcomes. J Cataract Refract Surg 2009, 35:1509-1517.
• [21]Cronbach LJ: Coefficient Alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
• [22]Metz SM, Wyrwich KW, Babu AN, Kroenke K, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD: A comparison of traditional and Rasch cut points for assessing clinically important change in health-related quality of life among patients with asthma. Qual Life Res 2006, 15:1639-1649.
• [23]Hart DL, Mioduski JE, Stratford PW: Simulated computerized adaptive tests for measuring functional status were efficient with good discriminant validity in patients with hip, knee, or foot/ankle impairments. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 58:629-638.
• [24]Van Der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK: Handbook of modern item response theory. Springer, New York; 1997.
• [25]Linacre JM, Wright BD: WINSTEPS Rasch-model computer program (Version 3.47) [computer software]. MESA Press, Chicago; 2007.
• [26]Streiner DL, Norman GR: Correction for multiple testing: is there a resolution? Chest 2011, 140:16-18.
• [27]Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Kreiner S: Consequences of screening in lung cancer: development and dimensionality of a questionnaire. Value Health 2010, 13:601-612.
• [28]Pesudovs K, Wright TA, Gothwal VK: Visual disability assessment: valid measurement of activity limitation and mobility in cataract patients. Br J Ophthalmol 2010, 94:777-781.
• [29]Liang WM, Chang CH, Yeh YC, Shy HY, Chen HW, Lin MR: Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF in community-dwelling older people in Taiwan using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 2009, 18:605-618.
• [30]Stelmack J, Szlyk JP, Stelmack T, Babcock-Parziale J, Demers-Turco P, Williams RT, Massof RW: Use of Rasch person-item map in exploratory data analysis: a clinical perspective. J Rehabil Res Dev 2004, 41:233-241.
• [31]Urbach DR, Tomlinson GA, Harnish JL, Martino R, Diamant NE: A measure of disease-specific health-related quality of life for achalasia. Am J Gastroenterol 2005, 100:1668-1676.
• [32]Salomonsson B, Ahlstrom S, Dalen N, Lillkrona U: The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index (WOSI): validity, reliability, and responsiveness retested with a Swedish translation. Acta Orthop 2009, 80:233-238.
• [33]Fieo RA, Austin EJ, Starr JM, Deary IJ: Calibrating ADL-IADL scales to improve measurement accuracy and to extend the disability construct into the preclinical range: a systematic review. BMC Geriatr 2011, 11:42. BioMed Central Full Text
• [34]Zelefsky MJ, Levin EJ, Hunt M, Yamada Y, Shippy AM, Jackson A, Amols HI: Incidence of late rectal and urinary toxicities after three-dimensional conformal radiotherapy and intensity-modulated radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 2008, 70:1124-1129.
• [35]Penson DF: Quality of life after therapy for localized prostate cancer. Cancer J 2007, 13:318-326.
• [36]Shrader-Bogen CL, Kjellberg JL, McPherson CP, Murray CL: Quality of life and treatment outcomes: prostate carcinoma patients' perspectives after prostatectomy or radiation therapy. Cancer 1997, 79:1977-1986.
• [37]Rosen RC, Riley A, Wagner G, Osterloh IH, Kirkpatrick J, Mishra A: The international index of erectile function (IIEF): a multidimensional scale for assessment of erectile dysfunction. Urology 1997, 49:822-830.
• [38]Rosen RC, Catania J, Pollack L, Althof S, O'Leary M, Seftel AD: Male Sexual Health Questionnaire (MSHQ): scale development and psychometric validation. Urology 2004, 64:777-782.
• [39]Cella D, Chang CH: A discussion of item response theory and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care 2000, 38:II66-72.
• [40]Hsueh IP, Wang WC, Sheu CF, Hsieh CL: Rasch analysis of combining two indices to assess comprehensive ADL function in stroke patients. Stroke 2004, 35:721-726.
• [41]Di Maio M, Perrone F: Quality of Life in elderly patients with cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:44. BioMed Central Full Text
• [42]Lin HC, Wu HC, Chang CH, Li TC, Liang WM, Wang JY: A real time online assessment system with modelized architecture on clinical infometrics for patient reported outcomes of prostate cancer. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 2012, 106:249-259.
• [43]GlÜck J, Indurkhya A: Assessing changes in the longitudinal salience of items within constructs. J Adolesc Res 2001, 16:169-187.