Journal of International Oncology

Journal of International Oncology ›› 2019, Vol. 46 ›› Issue (9): 513-518.doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1673-422X.2019.09.001

    Next Articles

The system of quality of life instruments for cancer patients (QLICP) V1.0 and comparisons with relevant European QLQ and American FACT

Wan Chonghua1, Yang Zheng2, Quan Peng1, Luo Jiahong3, Meng Qiong3, Li Gaofeng4, Cun Yingli4   

  1. 1School of Humanities and Management, Research Center for Quality of Life and Applied Psychology, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China; 2School of Public Health, Guangdong Medical University, Dongguan 523808, China; 3School of Public Health, Kunming Medical University, Kunming 650500, China; 4Department of Chest Surgery, Yunnan Tumor Hospital, Kunming 650106, China
  • Received:2019-08-12 Online:2019-09-08 Published:2019-09-08
  • Contact: Wan Chhonghua E-mail:wanchh@hotmail.com
  • Supported by:
    National Natural Science Foundation of China (71974040, 81273185)

PDF

595

PDF (Mobile)

124

Abstract: 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