Translation and validation of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for use in Iran

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Neil K Aaronson³  Azam Mardani¹  Amir H Pakpour²  Shahab Kamali Ardakani⁴  Mir Saeed Yekaninejad¹  Alireza Khoshnevisan⁴ 

[1]Brain and Spinal Injury Research Center (BASIR), Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran

[2]Department of Public Health, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran

[3]Division of Psychosocial Research & Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, the Netherlands

[4]Department of neurosurgery, Shariati hospital, Tehran University of medical sciences, Tehran, Iran

关键词: Psychometric evaluation;    QLQ-C30;    Brain cancer, QLQ-BN20;    Quality of life;   

Others  :  825614
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-10-54

 received in 2012-02-21, accepted in 2012-05-20,  发布年份 2012

【 摘 要 】

Background

The aim of this study was to translate the EORTC quality of life questionnaire for brain cancer, the QLQ-BN20, into Persian, and to evaluate its psychometric properties when used among brain cancer patients in Iran.

Methods

A standard backward and forward translation procedure was used to generate the Persian language version of the QLQ-BN20. The QLQ-BN20 was administered together with the QLQ-C30 to 194 patients diagnosed with primary brain cancer. Multitrait scaling and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were used to evaluate the hypothesized scale structure of the questionnaire. Internal consistency reliability was estimated with Cronbach’s alpha. The ability of the QLQ-BN20 to distinguish between patient subgroups formed on the basis of performance status and cognitive status was evaluated, as was the responsiveness of the questionnaire to changes in performance status over time.

Results

Multitrait scaling and CFA results confirmed the hypothesized scale structure. The measurement model was consistent across men and women. Internal consistency reliability of the multi-item scales ranged from 0.74 to 0.89. The QLQ-BN20 distinguished clearly between patients with relatively good versus poor performance and cognitive status, and changes in scores over time reflected changes observed in performance status ratings.

Conclusions

These results support the validity and reliability of the QLQ-BN20 for use among Iranian patients diagnosed with primary brain cancer. Future studies should examine the psychometrics of the questionnaire when used in patients with brain metastasis.

【 授权许可】

   
2012 Khoshnevisan et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E: Cancer statistics, 2010. CA: a cancer j clinicians 2010, 60(5):277-300.
• [2]Iran center for disease control and prevention, cancer office: Iranian annual of national cancer registration report 2006-2007. Ministry of health, Tehran; 2008.
• [3]US News & World Report: Brain Tumor Channel: Cleveland Clinic [cited 2012 May]. Available from: URL: http://health.usnews.com/health-conditions/cancer/brain-tumor webcite
• [4]Kirkbride P, Tannock IF: Trials in palliative treatment – have the goal posts been moved? Lancet Oncology 2008, 9:186-187.
• [5]Stupp R, Mason WP, van den Bent MJ, et al.: Radiotherapy plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide for glioblastoma. N Engl J Med 2005, 352:987-996.
• [6]Brandsma D, van den Bent MJ: Molecular targeted therapies and chemotherapy in malignant gliomas. Curr Opin Oncol 2007, 19(6):598-605.
• [7]Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al.: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Nat Cancer Institute 1993, 85(5):365-376.
• [8]Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al.: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of the general measure. J oncology: official j Am Soc Clin Oncology 1993, 11(3):570-579.
• [9]Osoba D, Aaronson NK, Muller M, et al.: The development and psychometric validation of a brain cancer quality-of-life questionnaire for use in combination with general cancer specific questionnaires. Quality of Life Res 1996, 5(1):139-150.
• [10]Taphoorn MJ, Claassens L, Aaronson NK, Coens C, Mauer M, Osoba D, Stupp R, Mirimanoff RO, van den Bent MJ, Bottomley A: EORTC Quality of Life Group, and Brain Cancer, NCIC and Radiotherapy Groups. An international validation study of the EORTC brain cancer module (EORTC QLQ-BN20) for assessing health-related quality of life and symptoms in brain cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2010, 46(6):1033-1040.
• [11]Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A: on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. 3rd edition. EORTC, Brussels; 2001.
• [12]Cull A, Sprangers MAG, Aaronson NK: On behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Study Group. European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life study group translation procedure, Internal report of the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life; 1994.
• [13]Montazeri A, Harirchi I, Vahdani M, Khaleghi F, Jarvandi S, Ebrahimi M, Haji-Mahmoodi M: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Supportive Care in Cancer 1999, 7(6):400-406.
• [14]Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, et al.: Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2007, 60:34-42.
• [15]Fayers PM, Machin D: Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester; 2000.
• [16]Browne MW, Cudeck R: Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Res 1992, 21:230-258.
• [17]Sivo SA, Fan X, Witta EL, Willse JT: The search for optimal cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. J Exp Educ 2006, 74:267-288.
• [18]Hu L, Bentler PM: Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Model 1999, 6:1-55.
• [19]Enders CK, Bandalos DL: The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equ Model 2001, 8:430-457.
• [20]Cheung GW, Rensvold RB: Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model 2002, 9:233-255.
• [21]Nunnally JC, Bernstein IR: Psychometric Theory. 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York; 1994.
• [22]Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y: Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Royal Statistical Society: Series B 1995, 57:289-300. Retrieved http://www.jstor.org webcite
• [23]Benjamini Y, Krieger AM, Yekutieli D: Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika 2006, 93:491-507.
• [24]Cohen J: A Power Primer. Psychol Bull 1992, 112(1):155-159.
• [25]Janda M, Steginga S, Langbecker D, Dunn J, Walker D, Eakin E: Quality of life among patients with a brain tumor and their carers. J Psychosom Res 2007, 63(6):617-623.
• [26]Mainio A, Hakko H, Niemelä A, Koivukangas J, Räsänen P: Gender difference in relation to depression and quality of life among patients with a primary brain tumor. Eur Psychiatry 2006, 21(3):194-199.
• [27]Niemelä A, Koivukangas J, Herva R, Hakko H, Räsänen P: Gender Difference in Quality of Life among Brain Tumor Survivors. J Neurol Neurophysiol 2011, 2:118.
• [28]Fischer R, Ferreira MC, Assmar E, Redford P, Harb C, Glazer S, Cheng BS, Jiang DY, Wong C, Kumar N, Kärtner J, Hofer J, Achoui M: Individualism-collectivism as descriptive norms: Development of a subjective norm approach to culture measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 2009, 40:187-213.