nach oben

Erschienen in:

28.11.2019

Consistency matters: measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in patients with hematologic malignancies

verfasst von: Kathrin Sommer, Francesco Cottone, Neil K. Aaronson, Peter Fayers, Paola Fazi, Gianantonio Rosti, Emanuele Angelucci, Gianluca Gaidano, Adriano Venditti, Maria Teresa Voso, Michele Baccarani, Marco Vignetti, Fabio Efficace

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 3/2020

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

To ensure that observed differences in the scores of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) reflect actual differences in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) rather than measurement bias, measurement invariance needs to be established. We investigated the assumption of measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in patients with hematological malignancies across age, sex, comorbidity, disease type, and time.

Methods

We used a large database of patients with hematological malignancies, which included HRQoL data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30. We used the structural equation modeling approach to test for measurement (metric and scalar) invariance across groups (age, sex, comorbidity, disease) and time (baseline, 1 month and 2 month follow-up). Longitudinal invariance was examined in a subgroup of patients diagnosed with myelodysplastic syndromes.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses demonstrated full measurement invariance for age and comorbidity and over time, while support for partial scalar invariance was obtained for sex and disease. Violations of invariance for sex were observed for items of the physical functioning scale and the emotional functioning scale, while for disease type, violations of invariance were observed for items of the physical functioning scale, emotional functioning scale, and the cognitive functioning scale.

Conclusions

Our findings support measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in a large sample of patients with hematological malignancies. The results showed that the number of non-invariant items was negligible, suggesting that this questionnaire is a valid and robust measurement tool in patients with hematological malignancies, also for comparisons across groups and time.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute,85(5), 365–376.CrossRef

King, M. T. (1996). The interpretation of scores from the EORTC quality of life questionnaire QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research,5(6), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00439229.CrossRefPubMed

Cocks, K., King, M. T., Velikova, G., de Castro, G., Martyn St-James, M., Fayers, P. M., et al. (2012). Evidence-based guidelines for interpreting change scores for the European Organisation for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30. European Journal of Cancer,48(11), 1713–1721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2012.02.059.CrossRefPubMed

Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology,16(1), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1998.16.1.139.CrossRefPubMed

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods,3(1), 4–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.CrossRef

Cole, D. A., & Maxwell, S. E. (1985). Multitrait–multimethod comparisons across populations: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,20(4), 389–417. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2004_3.CrossRefPubMed

Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika,58(4), 525–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294825.CrossRef

Steenkamp, J.-B. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research,25(1), 78–107. https://doi.org/10.1086/209528.CrossRef

Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin,105(3), 456–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456.CrossRef

10.

Costa, D. S., Aaronson, N. K., Fayers, P. M., Pallant, J. F., Velikova, G., & King, M. T. (2015). Testing the measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 across primary cancer sites using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. Quality of Life Research,24(1), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0799-0.CrossRefPubMed

11.

King-Kallimanis, B. L., ter Hoeven, C. L., de Haes, H. C., Smets, E. M., Koning, C. C., & Oort, F. J. (2012). Assessing measurement invariance of a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire in radiotherapy patients. Quality of Life Research,21(10), 1745–1753. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0094-2.CrossRefPubMed

12.

Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Tu, S. H., Huang, C. S., Jeng, J. Y., Chao, H. L., et al. (2010). Quality of life in Taiwanese breast cancer survivors with breast-conserving therapy. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association,109(7), 493–502. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0929-6646(10)60083-6.CrossRefPubMed

13.

Gerlich, C., Schuler, M., Jelitte, M., Neuderth, S., Flentje, M., Graefen, M., et al. (2016). Prostate cancer patients’ quality of life assessments across the primary treatment trajectory: ‘True’ change or response shift? Acta Oncologica,55(7), 814–820. https://doi.org/10.3109/0284186x.2015.1136749.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Fayers, P., Aaronson, N. K., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

15.

Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research,39(3), 479–515. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3903_4.CrossRef

16.

Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & van der Veld, W. M. (2009). Testing structural equation models or detection of misspecifications? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,16(4), 561–582. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903203433.CrossRef

17.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.CrossRef

18.

Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research,8(2), 23–74.

19.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software,48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.CrossRef

20.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. Wiley series in probability and mathematical statistics. New York: Wiley.

21.

Lee, Y. S. (2005). Gender differences in physical activity and walking among older adults. Journal of Women and Aging,17(1–2), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1300/j074v17n01_05.CrossRefPubMed

22.

Efficace, F., Baccarani, M., Breccia, M., Alimena, G., Rosti, G., Cottone, F., et al. (2011). Health-related quality of life in chronic myeloid leukemia patients receiving long-term therapy with imatinib compared with the general population. Blood,118(17), 4554–4560. https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2011-04-347575.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Winkler, D., Pjrek, E., & Kasper, S. (2005). Anger attacks in depression—Evidence for a male depressive syndrome. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics,74(5), 303–307. https://doi.org/10.1159/000086321.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Green, B. (2003). Post-traumatic stress disorder: Symptom profiles in men and women. Current Medical Research and Opinion,19(3), 200–204. https://doi.org/10.1185/030079903125001604.CrossRefPubMed

25.

Smith, L. L., & Reise, S. P. (1998). Gender differences on negative affectivity: An IRT study of differential item functioning on the multidimensional personality questionnaire stress reaction scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75(5), 1350–1362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.5.1350.CrossRefPubMed

26.

Bollen, K. A., & Bauldry, S. (2010). Model identification and computer algebra. Sociological Methods and Research,39(2), 127–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124110366238.CrossRefPubMed

27.

Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting violations of factorial invariance using data-based specification searches: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,14(3), 435–463. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301677.CrossRef

28.

Reise, S. P., Widaman, K. F., & Pugh, R. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin,114(3), 552–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.552.CrossRefPubMed

29.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management,25(1), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-2063(99)80001-4.CrossRef

30.

Cheung, G. W., & Lau, R. S. (2012). A direct comparison approach for testing measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods,15(2), 167–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111421987.CrossRef

31.

Jung, E., & Yoon, M. (2016). Comparisons of three empirical methods for partial factorial invariance: Forward, backward, and factor-ratio tests. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,23(4), 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2015.1138092.CrossRef

32.

Whittaker, T. A., & Khojasteh, J. (2013). A comparison of methods to detect invariant reference indicators in structural equation modelling. International Journal of Quantitative Research in Education,1(4), 426–443. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijqre.2013.058310.CrossRef

33.

Gundy, C. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. A., Scott, N. W., Sprangers, M. A. G., et al. (2012). Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research,21(9), 1607–1617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Giesinger, J. M., Kieffer, J. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. A., Scott, N. W., et al. (2016). Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,69, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.007.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research,6(2), 139–150.CrossRef

36.

Boehmer, S., & Luszczynska, A. (2006). Two kinds of items in quality of life instruments: ‘Indicator and Causal Variables’ in the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research,15(1), 131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-005-8290-6.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Oort, F. J., Visser, M. R. M., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (2005). An application of structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change in quality of life data from cancer patients undergoing invasive surgery. Quality of Life Research,14(3), 599–609. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0831-x.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Rapkin, B. D., & Schwartz, C. E. (2004). Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: Implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes,2, 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-2-14.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Titel: Consistency matters: measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in patients with hematologic malignancies
verfasst von: Kathrin Sommer
Francesco Cottone
Neil K. Aaronson
Peter Fayers
Paola Fazi
Gianantonio Rosti
Emanuele Angelucci
Gianluca Gaidano
Adriano Venditti
Maria Teresa Voso
Michele Baccarani
Marco Vignetti
Fabio Efficace
Publikationsdatum: 28.11.2019
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 3/2020
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-019-02369-5

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Consistency matters: measurement invariance of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire in patients with hematologic malignancies

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2020

Quality of life in older adults receiving hemodialysis: a qualitative study

Quality of life in primary care patients with moderate medically unexplained physical symptoms

The association between health-related quality of life and noise or light sensitivity in survivors of a mild traumatic brain injury

Characterizing health state utilities associated with Duchenne muscular dystrophy: a systematic review

Is quality of life after mastectomy comparable to that after breast conservation surgery? A 5-year follow up study from Mumbai, India

Assessing measurement invariance of MSQOL-54 across Italian and English versions