The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3966-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
To assess the factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS).
An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed on QWLQ-CS data from a sample of employed cancer survivors to establish the final number of items and factorial structure of the QWLQ-CS. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. In a second sample of (self-)employed cancer survivors, construct validity was tested by convergent validity (correlations of QWLQ-CS with construct-related questionnaires), and discriminative validity (difference in QWLQ-CS scores between cancer survivors and employed people without cancer). In a subgroup of stable cancer survivors subtracted from the second sample, reproducibility was evaluated by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM).
EFA on QWLQ-CS data of 302 cancer survivors resulted in 23 items and five factors. The internal consistency of the QWLQ-CS was Cronbach’s α = 0.91. Convergent validity on data of 130 cancer survivors resulted in r = 0.61–0.70. QWLQ-CS scores of these cancer survivors statistically differed (p = 0.04) from employed people without cancer (N = 45). Reproducibility of QWLQ-CS data from 87 cancer survivors demonstrated an ICC of 0.84 and a SEM of 9.59.
The five-factor QWLQ-CS with 23 items and adequate internal consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility at group level can be used in clinical and occupational healthcare, and research settings.
Additional file 1: Psychometric properties. Psychometric properties of QWLQ-CS. (DOC 40 kb)12885_2017_3966_MOESM1_ESM.doc
Additional file 2: English version of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). Word file of English version of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS). (DOC 30 kb)12885_2017_3966_MOESM2_ESM.doc
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. (2013). GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase no. 11 [internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. http://globocan.iarc.fr. Accessed 25 April 2016.
Siesling S, Sonke G, de Raaf A, Jansen-Landheer M, Huijgens P. (2014). Presentation of Cancer Care Organisation [In Dutch: Integraal Kankercentrum Nederland (IKNL)]. https://www.kanker.nl/uploads/file_element/content/4604/kankerzorg-in-beeld-_kib_.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2016.
Amir Z, Wynn P, Whitaker S, Luker K. Cancer survivorship and return to work: UK occupational physician experience. Occup Med. 2009;59:390–6. CrossRef
Chan KW, Wyatt TA. Quality of work life: a study of employees in shanghai, China. Asia Pacific. Bus Rev. 2007;13:501–17.
Ventegodt S, Andersen NJ, Kandel I, Enevoldsen L, Merrick J. Scientific research in the quality of working-life (QWL): generic measuring of the global working life quality with the SEQWL questionnaire. Int J Disabil Hum Dev. 2008;7:201–17.
Murphy L. Job stress research at NIOSH: 1972-2002. In: Perrewé PL, Ganster DC, editors. Research in occupational stress and well-being: historical and current perspectives on stress and health, vol. 2. Kidlington, Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2002. p. 1–55. CrossRef
Martel JP, Dupuis G. Quality of work life: theoretical and methodological problems, and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77:333–68. CrossRef
Brooks BA, Anderson MA. Defining quality of nursing work life. Nurs Econ. 2005;23:319–26. PubMed
Johnson C, Aaronson N, Blazeby JM, Bottomley A, Fayers P, Koller M, et al. EORTC quality of life group: guidelines for developing questionnaires modules. Brussels: EORTC; 2011. http://groups.eortc.be/qol/sites/default/files/archives/guidelines_for_developing_questionnaire-_final.pdf. Accessed 25 April 2016
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011. CrossRef
Field A. Discovering statistics using spss. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2005.
Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2007. CrossRef
Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7:191–205. CrossRef
Lagerveld SE, Blonk RWB, Brenninkmeijer V, Schaufeli WB. Return to work among employees with mental health problems: development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work Stress. 2010;24:359–75. CrossRef
Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res.1:349–51.
Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10. CrossRef
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:701–16. CrossRef
Hartung TJ, Mehnert A, Friedrich M, Hartmann M, Vehling S, Bokemeyer C, et al. Age-related variation and predictors of long-term quality of life in germ cell tumor survivors. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:60.e1–6.
Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clinical Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–73. CrossRef
Weng LJ. Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64:956–72. CrossRef
Reio TG, Shuck B. Exploratory factor analysis: implications for theory, research, and practice. Adv Devel. Hum Resour. 2015;17:12–25.
Crawford AV, Green SB, Levy R, Lo W-J, Scott L, Svetina D, et al. Evaluation of parallel analysis methods for determining the number of factors. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010; https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164410379332.
- The quality of working life questionnaire for cancer survivors (QWLQ-CS): factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility
Merel de Jong
Sietske J. Tamminga
Robert J. J. van Es
Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen
Angela G. E. M. de Boer
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Onkologie
Mail Icon II