nach oben

Quality of Life Research

Erschienen in:

01.02.2015 | Brief Communication

The Caregiver Quality of Life Index–Cancer (CQOLC) in Singapore: a new preliminary factor structure for caregivers of ambulatory patients with cancer

verfasst von: Rathi Mahendran, Haikel A. Lim, Joanne Chua, Chao Xu Peh, Siew Eng Lim, Ee Heok Kua

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 2/2015

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Purpose

The Caregiver Quality of Life Index–Cancer (CQOLC) is used worldwide to determine levels of quality of life of caregivers of patients with cancer; however, the few studies examining the underlying factor structure of the CQOLC have revealed differences between Western and Eastern cultures. This study sought to confirm the differences in the factor structures between the original CQOLC and a Taiwanese (Mandarin) version.

Methods

A total of 183 caregivers from a cancer center in Singapore participated in this exploratory cross-sectional study. All participants completed the CQOLC and a sociodemographic form; 30 participants repeated the CQOLC two weeks later.

Results

Test–retest reliability was adequate for the CQOLC; however, confirmatory factor analyses did not support either the original four-factor model or the Taiwanese five-factor model. Exploratory factor analyses suggested the retaining of five factors to form a 25-item Singapore version (CQOLC-S25): burden, physical/practical concerns, emotional reactivity, self-needs, and social support. Inter-factor and factor scale correlations were positively significant for all factors except Support, which was negatively correlated with emotional reactivity and self-needs.

Conclusions

Cross-cultural differences, which require further investigations, appear to underlie the utility and understanding of the CQOLC. More research is needed to better understand the needs of Singapore caregivers.

Vorheriger Artikel Normative data for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale

Nächster Artikel The German Lower Extremity Functional Scale (LEFS) is reliable, valid and responsive in patients undergoing hip or knee replacement

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

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!

Jetzt informieren

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!

Jetzt informieren

Singapore Ministry of Health. (2013). Principal Causes of Death. Singapore Health Facts. Retrieved December 20 2013, from http://www.moh.gov.sg/content/moh_web/home/statistics/Health_Facts_Singapore.html.

Gaugler, J. E., Hanna, N., Linder, J., Given, C. W., Tolbert, V., Kataria, R., et al. (2005). Cancer caregiving and subjective stress: A multi-site, multi-dimensional analysis. Psycho-oncology, 14(9), 771–785. doi:10.1002/pon.916.PubMedCrossRef

Weitzner, M. A., Jacobsen, P. B., Wagner, H., Friedland, J., & Cox, C. (1999). The caregiver quality of life index-cancer (CQOLC) scale: Development and validation of an instrument to measure quality of life of the family caregiver of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 8(1–2), 55–63.PubMedCrossRef

Weitzner, M. A., Meyers, C. A., Steinbruecker, S., Saleeba, A. K., & Sandifer, S. D. (1997). Developing a care giver quality-of-life instrument: Preliminary steps. Cancer Practice, 5(1), 25–31.PubMed

Grov, E. K., & Dahl, A. A. (2010). Quality of life measures in caregivers of patients with cancer. In V. R. Preedy & R. R. Watson (Eds.), Handbook of disease burdens and quality of life measures (Vol. 1, pp. 2935–2946). New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-78665-0_171.CrossRef

Wadhwa, D., Burman, D., Swami, N., Rodin, G., Lo, C., & Zimmermann, C. (2013). Quality of life and mental health in caregivers of outpatients with advanced cancer. Psycho-oncology, 22(2), 403–410. doi:10.1002/pon.2104.PubMed

Leow, M. Q. H., Chan, M.-F., & Chan, S. W. C. (2013). Predictors of change in quality of life of family caregivers of patients near the end of life with advanced cancer. Cancer Nursing,. doi:10.1097/NCC.0000000000000101.

Yakar, H. K., & Pinar, R. (2013). Reliability and validity of Turkish version of the caregiver quality of life index cancer scale. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 14(7), 4415–4419.PubMedCrossRef

Lafaye, A., De Chalvron, S., Houédé, N., Eghbali, H., & Cousson-Gélie, F. (2013). The caregivers quality of life cancer index scale (CQoLC): An exploratory factor analysis for validation in French cancer patients’ spouses. Quality of Life Research, 22(1), 119–122. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0113-y.PubMedCrossRef

10.

Weitzner, M. A., & McMillan, S. C. (1999). The caregiver quality of life index-cancer (CQOLC) scale: Revalidation in a home hospice setting. Journal of Palliative Care, 15(2), 13–20.PubMed

11.

Tang, W.-R., Tang, S., & Kao, C. (2009). Psychometric testing of the caregiver quality of life index-cancer on a Taiwanese family caregiver sample. Cancer Nursing, 32(3), 220–229. doi:10.1097/NCC.0b013e31819b5ae8.PubMedCrossRef

12.

Rhee, Y. S., Shin, D. O., Lee, K. M., Yu, H. J., Kim, J. W., Kim, S. O., et al. (2005). Korean version of the caregiver quality of life index-cancer (CQOLC-K). Quality of Life Research, 14(3), 899–904.PubMedCrossRef

13.

De Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44(2), 147–181. doi:10.1080/00273170902794206.CrossRef

14.

Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

15.

Walter, S. D., Eliasziw, M., & Donner, A. (1998). Sample size and optimal designs for reliability studies. Statistics in Medicine, 17(1), 101–110.PubMedCrossRef

16.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (2007). Agreement between methods of measurement with multiple observations per individual. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 17(4), 571–582. doi:10.1080/10543400701329422.PubMedCrossRef

17.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.PubMedCrossRef

18.

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 230–258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.CrossRef

19.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2000). LISREL 8: User’s reference guide (2nd ed.). Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International Inc.

20.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39(2), 291–314. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1986.tb00583.x.CrossRef

21.

Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & William, C. B. (1998). Multivariate data analysis. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.

22.

Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research a content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. doi:10.1177/0011000006288127.CrossRef

23.

Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2009). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Pan-Pacific Management Review, 12(2), 131–146.

24.

Terwee, C. B., Bot, S. D. M., de Boer, M. R., van der Windt, D. A., Knol, D. L., Dekker, J., et al. (2007). Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 60(1), 34–42. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.PubMedCrossRef

25.

Mehta, K. K. (2006). A critical review of Singapore’s policies aimed at supporting families caring for older members. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 18(3–4), 43–57. doi:10.1300/J031v18n03_04.CrossRef

Titel: The Caregiver Quality of Life Index–Cancer (CQOLC) in Singapore: a new preliminary factor structure for caregivers of ambulatory patients with cancer
verfasst von: Rathi Mahendran
Haikel A. Lim
Joanne Chua
Chao Xu Peh
Siew Eng Lim
Ee Heok Kua
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2015
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 2/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0768-7

Springer Professional

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2015

Differential exercise effects on quality of life and health-related quality of life in older adults: a randomized controlled trial

Exploring the influence of demographic and medical characteristics of African-American and Latinas on enrollment in a behavioral intervention study for breast cancer survivors

Examining unidimensionality and improving reliability for the eight subscales of the SF-36 in opioid-dependent patients using Rasch analysis

Combination of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) analysis to study the psychometric properties of the French version of the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire-Short Form (Q-LES-Q-SF)

Validation and reliability of a Spanish version of Simple Shoulder Test (SST-Sp)

The use of the EQ-5D as a measure of health-related quality of life in people with dementia and their carers

Premium Partner