{"title":"癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系QLICP（V1.0）及其与欧洲QLQ和美国FACT量表的比较","authors":"杨铮 全鹏 罗家洪 孟琼 李高峰 寸英丽 万崇华","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1673-422X.2019.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nTo compare the differences and similarities among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP) V1.0, the quality of life questionnaire (QLQ) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) from Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE) of America. \n \n \nMethods \nBased on literatures and our measuring data from patients at hospitals, the constructs, characteristics and psychometrics of the systems above were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach α coefficient for each domain, and test-retest reliability through calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient r between the first and second assessments as well as intra-class correlation (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient r (item-domains correlations) and factor analysis. The criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating corresponding domains of two instruments. Responsiveness was assessed through comparing the mean difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment with standardized response mean (SRM). \n \n \nResults \nThe instruments of three systems were of different outstanding characteristics with all psychometrics meeting requirements. Measurements for 12 types of cancers showed that the internal consistency reliability Cronbach α coefficient for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.67-0.92, and for FACT was 0.79-0.98. The test-retest reliability (r or ICC) for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.61-0.99, and for FACT was 0.60-0.98. The SRM for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.25-1.28, and for FACT was 0.11-0.83. However, the QLICP was of better construct (clear hierarchical structure with items→facets→domains→overall) and Chinese culture. \n \n \nConclusion \nThe instruments of three systems can be used as the instruments to assess quality of life for patients with cancer with selections basing on different settings. \n \n \nKey words: \nQuality of life; Neoplasms; Behavior rating scale; Quality of life instruments for cancer patients","PeriodicalId":16120,"journal":{"name":"国际肿瘤学杂志","volume":"31 1","pages":"513-518"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"癌症患者生命质量测定量表体系QLICP（V1.0）及其与欧洲QLQ和美国FACT量表的比较\",\"authors\":\"杨铮 全鹏 罗家洪 孟琼 李高峰 寸英丽 万崇华\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1673-422X.2019.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nTo compare the differences and similarities among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP) V1.0, the quality of life questionnaire (QLQ) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) from Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE) of America. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nBased on literatures and our measuring data from patients at hospitals, the constructs, characteristics and psychometrics of the systems above were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach α coefficient for each domain, and test-retest reliability through calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient r between the first and second assessments as well as intra-class correlation (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient r (item-domains correlations) and factor analysis. The criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating corresponding domains of two instruments. Responsiveness was assessed through comparing the mean difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment with standardized response mean (SRM). \\n \\n \\nResults \\nThe instruments of three systems were of different outstanding characteristics with all psychometrics meeting requirements. Measurements for 12 types of cancers showed that the internal consistency reliability Cronbach α coefficient for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.67-0.92, and for FACT was 0.79-0.98. The test-retest reliability (r or ICC) for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.61-0.99, and for FACT was 0.60-0.98. The SRM for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.25-1.28, and for FACT was 0.11-0.83. However, the QLICP was of better construct (clear hierarchical structure with items→facets→domains→overall) and Chinese culture. \\n \\n \\nConclusion \\nThe instruments of three systems can be used as the instruments to assess quality of life for patients with cancer with selections basing on different settings. \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nQuality of life; Neoplasms; Behavior rating scale; Quality of life instruments for cancer patients\",\"PeriodicalId\":16120,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"国际肿瘤学杂志\",\"volume\":\"31 1\",\"pages\":\"513-518\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"国际肿瘤学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1673-422X.2019.09.001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"国际肿瘤学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.ISSN.1673-422X.2019.09.001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Objective
To compare the differences and similarities among the system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP) V1.0, the quality of life questionnaire (QLQ) from European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) from Center on Outcomes, Research and Education (CORE) of America.
Methods
Based on literatures and our measuring data from patients at hospitals, the constructs, characteristics and psychometrics of the systems above were analyzed and compared. Internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach α coefficient for each domain, and test-retest reliability through calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient r between the first and second assessments as well as intra-class correlation (ICC). Construct validity was evaluated by Pearson correlation coefficient r (item-domains correlations) and factor analysis. The criterion-related validity was evaluated by correlating corresponding domains of two instruments. Responsiveness was assessed through comparing the mean difference between the pre-treatment and post-treatment with standardized response mean (SRM).
Results
The instruments of three systems were of different outstanding characteristics with all psychometrics meeting requirements. Measurements for 12 types of cancers showed that the internal consistency reliability Cronbach α coefficient for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.67-0.92, and for FACT was 0.79-0.98. The test-retest reliability (r or ICC) for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.61-0.99, and for FACT was 0.60-0.98. The SRM for the overall scale of QLICP (V1.0) was 0.25-1.28, and for FACT was 0.11-0.83. However, the QLICP was of better construct (clear hierarchical structure with items→facets→domains→overall) and Chinese culture.
Conclusion
The instruments of three systems can be used as the instruments to assess quality of life for patients with cancer with selections basing on different settings.
Key words:
Quality of life; Neoplasms; Behavior rating scale; Quality of life instruments for cancer patients
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
