4.6 Article

Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 69, 期 -, 页码 79-88

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.007

关键词

Health-related quality of life; Questionnaires; EORTC QLQ-C30; Measurement model; Higher order factor scores; Confirmatory factor analysis

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund [FWF J3353]
  2. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [J 3353] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To further evaluate the higher order measurement structure of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30), with the aim of generating a summary score. Study Design and Setting: Using pretreatment QLQ-C30 data (N = 3,282), we conducted confirmatory factor analyses to test seven previously evaluated higher order models. We compared the summary score(s) derived from the best performing higher order model with the original QLQ-C30 scale scores, using tumor stage, performance status, and change over time (N = 244) as grouping variables. Results: Although all models showed acceptable fit, we continued in the interest of parsimony with known-groups validity and responsiveness analyses using a summary score derived from the single higher order factor model. The validity and responsiveness of this QLQ-C30 summary score was equal to, and in many cases superior to the original, underlying QLQ-C30 scale scores. Conclusion: Our results provide empirical support for a measurement model for the QLQ-C30 yielding a single summary score. The availability of this summary score can avoid problems with potential type I errors that arise because of multiple testing when making comparisons based on the 15 outcomes generated by this questionnaire and may reduce sample size requirements for health-related quality of life studies using the QLQ-C30 questionnaire when an overall summary score is a relevant primary outcome. (C) 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据