4.4 Article

The PedsQL™ brain tumor module:: Initial reliability and validity

Journal

PEDIATRIC BLOOD & CANCER
Volume 49, Issue 3, Pages 287-293

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/pbc.21026

Keywords

brain tumor; children; fatigue; health-related quality of life; PedsQL (TM); pediatrics; Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (TM)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Brain tumors (BT) are second only to acute lymphoblastic leukemia as the most prevalent form of pediatric cancer, with BT 5-year survival rates approaching 70%. With increased survival, quality of life has emerged as an essential health Outcome. This investigation examines the internal consistency reliability and construct validity of the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (TM) (PedsQL (TM)) Brain Tumor Module. Methods. The PedsQL (TM) 4.0 Generic Core Scales, PedsQL (TM) Multidimensional Fatigue Scale, and PedsQL (TM) Brain Tumor Module were administered to 99 families. The average age of the 56 boys and 43 girls was 9.76 years (range = 2-18 years). The sample included children with tumors located in the posterior fossa/brainstem (N = 62, 62.6%), supratentorial (N = 15, 15.2%), and midline (N = 22, 22.2%). Children were on treatment (N = 46, 46.5%), off treatment < 12 months (N = 19, 19.2%), or off treatment > 12 months/long-term survivor (N = 34, 34.3%). Treatment included radiation (N = 61, 61.6%), surgery (N = 83, 83.8%), chemotherapy (N = 87, 87.9%), and bone marrow transplant (N = 5, 5.1%). Results. Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated for the 24-item PedsQL (TM) Brain Tumor Module (average alpha = 0.78-0.92, parent proxy-report, n = 99; average alpha = 0.76-0.87, child self-report, n = 51). Construct validity for the PedsQL (TM) Brain Tumor Module was supported through an analysis of the intercorrelations with the Generic Core Scales and Fatigue Scale. Conclusions. The findings provide support for the measurement properties of the PedsQL (TM)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available