Skip to main content
Disciplines
Automotive Business IT + Informatics Construction + Real Estate Electrical Engineering + Electronics Energy + Sustainability Insurance + Risk Finance + Banking Management + Leadership Marketing + Sales Mechanical Engineering + Materials
Events
DE
EN
Books
Journals
Topic Page
Marketing
Start single access now
Access for companies
EXTENDED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Quality of Life Research
Published in: Quality of Life Research 1/2013

01-02-2013

Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module

Authors: Susanne Singer, Philipp M. Engelberg, Gregor Weißflog, Susanne Kuhnt, Jochen Ernst

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 1/2013

Log in

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Purpose

Providing sufficient information about diagnosis and treatment is an important feature of high-quality patient care in oncology. To measure patient satisfaction with information received, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group has recently developed a new tool, the information module (INFO25). The aim of this study was to evaluate the scale structure of the INFO25.

Methods

A total of n = 423 patients completed the INFO25 after finishing cancer therapy. The internal consistency of multi-item subscales was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha. The scale structure was evaluated using multi-trait methods and confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

Cronbach’s Alpha of the multi-item scales ranged from 0.79 to 0.88. Only two items correlated somewhat higher with another scale than with their own, indicating a good scale structure. Construct validity with latent variable models, including a general information factor and four multi-item scales, resulted in the following fit indices CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08, TLI = 0.99 and WRMR = 1.03.

Conclusion

The suggested construct of the INFO25 with a total score (general factor) in addition to the subscales is valid.
previous article The Caregivers Quality of Life Cancer index scale (CQoLC): an exploratory factor analysis for validation in French cancer patients’ spouses
next article Validation of a new patient-generated questionnaire for quality of life in an urban sample of elder residents

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now
Literature
1.
Baron, G., & Poveda, J. (1993). In Scientific Foundation of the Spanish Association Against Cancer (Ed.), Information to the terminal patient: the bearable truth, in Information on cancer patient diagnosis (p. 119). ALVE, Mayo.
2.
Barnett, M. M., Devrell, C., Barrington, M., & McMichael, H. (1995). Information needs of patients with advanced cancer—How much do they know and does this match what they want to know? Psycho-Oncology, 4, 83.CrossRef
3.
Fielding, R., & Hung, J. (1996). Preferences for information and involvement in decisions during cancer care among a Hong Kong Chinese population. Psycho-Oncology, 5, 321–329.CrossRef
4.
Degner, L. F., Kristjanson, L. J., Bowman, D., Sloan, J. A., Carriere, K. C., O’Neil, J., et al. (1997). Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA, 277, 1485–1492.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.PubMed
6.
Tamburini, M., Gangeri, L., Brunelli, C., Beltrami, E., Boeri, P., Borreani, C., et al. (2000). Assessment of hospitalised cancer patients’ needs by the needs evaluation questionnaire. Annals of Oncology, 11, 31–37.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980). Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 92, 832–836.PubMed
8.
Charlton, R., Dovey, S., & Mizushima, Y. (1993). National differences in breaking bad news. Medical Journal of Australia, 159, 72.PubMed
9.
Tajima,T. (1997). Informed consent for patients with advanced cancer. Tokai Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, 22(6), 271–274.
10.
Mitchell, J. L. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in the disclosure of cancer. Cancer Pract, 6, 153–160.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Horikawa, N., Yamazaki, T., Sagawa, M., & Nagata, T. (1999). The disclosure of information to cancer patients and its relationship to their mental state in a consultation-liaison psychiatry setting in Japan. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 368–373.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Horikawa, N., Yamazaki, T., Sagawa, M., & Nagata, T. (2000). Changes in disclosure of information to cancer patients in a general hospital in Japan. General Hospital Psychiatry, 22, 37–42.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Elwyn, T. S., Fetters, M. D., Sasaki, H., & Tsuda, T. (2002). Responsibility and cancer disclosure in Japan. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 281–293.CrossRef
14.
Younge, D., Moreau, P., Ezzat, A., & Gray, A. (1997). Communicating with cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 809, 309–316.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Baile, W. F., Buckman, R., Lenzi, R., Glober, G., Beale, E. A., & Kudelka, A. P. (2000). SPIKES—A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: Application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist, 5, 302–311.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Betson, C. L., Fielding, R., Wong, G., Chung, S. F., & Nestel, D. F. (1997). Evaluation of two videotape instruction programmes on how to break bad news—For Cantonese-speaking medical students in Hong Kong. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 20, 172–177.
17.
Fallowfield, L., Lipkin, M., & Hall, A. (1998). Teaching senior oncologists communication skills: Results from phase I of a comprehensive longitudinal program in the United Kingdom. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 1961–1968.PubMed
18.
Arraras, J. I., Kuljanic-Vlasic, K., Björdal, K., Yun, Y. H., Efficace, F., Holzner, B., et al. (2007). EORTC QLQ-INFO26: A questionnaire to assess information given to cancer patients—a preliminary analysis in eight countries. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 249–254.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Arraras, J. I., Greimel, E., Sezer, O., Chie, W. C., Bergenmar, M., Costantini, A., et al. (2010). An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: An instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 2726–2738.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brüssel: EORTC.
21.
Schulze, R. (2005). Modeling structures of intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 241–263). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRef
22.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
23.
Yu, C. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
24.
Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2002). Mplus User’s Guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
25.
SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
26.
Parker, P. A., Baile, W. F., De Moor, C., Lenzi, R., Kudelka, A. P., & Cohen, L. (2001). Breaking bad news about cancer: Patients’ preferences for communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 2049–2056.PubMed
27.
Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.PubMed
28.
Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., Hayter, C., Groome, P., Nickel, J. C., Downes, H. et al. (2000). What questions do patients with curable prostate cancer want answered? Medical Decision Making, 20(1), 7–19.
29.
Girgis, A., Boyes, A., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Burrows, S. (2000). Perceived needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: Rural versus urban location. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24, 166–173.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Leydon, G. M., Boulton, M., Moynihan, C., Jones, A., Mossman, J., Boudioni, M., et al. (2000). Cancer patients’ information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study. BMJ, 320, 909–913.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Payne, S., Large, S., Jarrett, N., & Turner, P. (2000). Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: A national survey. Lancet, 355, 1792.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Benowitz, S. (1999). To tell the truth: A cancer diagnosis in other cultures is often a family affair. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91, 1918–1919.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Bickeböller, R. (1999). Die Wahrheit wissen, aber nicht mitteilen dürfen—Zum Problem der Aufklärung am Krankenbett. Ethik in der Medizin, 11, 182–189.CrossRef
34.
Carlsson, M. E., Strang, P. M., & Nygren, U. (1999). Qualitative analysis of the questions raised by patients with gynecologic cancers and their relatives in an educational support group. Journal of Cancer Education, 14, 41–46.PubMed
35.
Davidson, J. R., Brundage, M. D., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (1999). Lung cancer treatment decisions: Patients’ desires for participation and information. Psychooncology, 8, 511–520.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module
Authors
Susanne Singer
Philipp M. Engelberg
Gregor Weißflog
Susanne Kuhnt
Jochen Ernst
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0114-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Quality of Life Research 1/2013 Go to the issue

OriginalPaper

Health-related quality-of-life status in Veterans with spinal disorders

OriginalPaper

Subjective wellbeing and ‘felt’ stigma when living with HIV

OriginalPaper

Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: a comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y—the WAVES Pilot Study

OriginalPaper

Response shift effects on measuring post-operative quality of life among breast cancer patients: a multicenter cohort study

OriginalPaper

Missing content from health-related quality of life instruments: interviews with young adult survivors of childhood cancer

Brief Communication

Validation of a new patient-generated questionnaire for quality of life in an urban sample of elder residents