Validation of FACT-Cx Scale in Colombia Using Item Response Theory
Keywords:
Quality of life, uterine cervical neoplasm, questionnaires, validation studiesAbstract
Objective: To determine the psychometric properties and measurement features of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cervix (FACTCx) by means of Rasch analysis.
Methods: A scale validation study using the FACT-Cx questionnaire was carried out among 218 cervical cancer patients. Following item scoring, analysis was performed with the partial credit Rasch model for polytomous data.
Results: The highest score corresponded to the domain of ´specific concerns related to cervical pathology´. Items showed adequate reliability and separation rates (0.89 and 5.96, respectively). In the cases of individual persons, the lower index values suggest a restricted construct range in this sample. Adjustment indicators suggest construct homogeneity. Family support scored highest as having positive impact on quality of life; whereas, a sense of hopelessness rated as the most negative. The item related to concern over reproductive ability was not adequately measured by the construct; due, probably, to patients´ ages. Evaluation of the scoring system showed adequate detection of the scoring attribute, but some categories are redundant.
Conclusions: The FACT-Cx scale is made up of a set of items which, in general, adequately measures a one-dimensional structure. However, the scoring system appears to include redundancies. The properties associated with the reproductive ability item should be assessed in a sample that includes greater range in subjects´ ages.
Author Biographies
Ricardo Sánchez, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología
Grupo de Investigación Clínica, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Licet Villamizar, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología
Grupo de Investigación Clínica, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
Natascha Ortiz, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología
Grupo de Investigación Clínica, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá D.C., Colombia
References
Canfell K, Sitas F, Beral V. Cervical cancer in Australia and theUnitedKingdom: comparison of screeningpolicy and uptake, and cancerincidence and mortality. Med J Aust. 2006;185:482-6.
https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00661.x
Parkin DM, Bray F, Ferlay J, et al. Global cancer statistics, 2002.CA Cancer J Clin. 2005;55:74-108.
https://doi.org/10.3322/canjclin.55.2.74
Landoni F, Maneo A, Cormio G, et al. Class II versus class III radical hysterectomy in stage IB-IIA cervical cancer: a prospective randomized study. GynecolOncol. 2001;80:3-12.
https://doi.org/10.1006/gyno.2000.6010
Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring healthrelated quality of life. Ann Intern Med. 1993;118:622-9.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-118-8-199304150-00009
Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. N Engl J Med. 1996;334:835-40.
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM199603283341306
Ashing-Giwa KT, Lim JW, Tang J. Surviving cervical cancer: does health-related quality of life influence survival? GynecolOncol. 2010;118:35-42.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2010.02.027
Frumovitz M, Sun CC, Schover LR, et al. Quality of life and sexual functioning in cervical cancer survivors. J ClinOncol. 2005;23:7428-36.
https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.00.3996
Li C, Samsioe G, Iosif C. Quality of life in long-term survivors of cervical cancer. Maturitas. 1999;32:95-102.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-5122(99)00020-1
Luckett T, King M, Butow P, et al. Assessing health-related quality of life in gynecologic oncology: a systematic review of questionnaires and their ability to detect clinically important differences and change. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2010;20:664-84.
https://doi.org/10.1111/IGC.0b013e3181dad379
Greimel ER, KuljanicVlasic K, Waldenstrom AC, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-Life questionnaire cervical cancer module: EORTC QLQ-CX24. Cancer. 2006;107:1812-22.
https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22217
Webster K, Cella D, Yost K. The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:79.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-79
Zeng YC, Ching SS, Loke AY. Quality of life measurement in women with cervical cancer: implications for Chinese cervical cancer survivors. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010;8:30.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-8-30
Wolfe EW, Smith EV Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: part I - instrument development tools. J Appl Meas. 2007;8:97-123.
Wolfe EW, Smith EV Jr. Instrument development tools and activities for measure validation using Rasch models: part II--validation activities. J Appl Meas. 2007;8:204-34.
Luquet C, Chau N, Guillemin F, et al. A method for shortening instruments using the Rasch model: validation on a hand functional measure. Rev EpidemiolSantePublique. 2001;49:273-86.
Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1991.
Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27:S217-32.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198903001-00018
Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724-35.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-198807000-00007
Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Pollard WE, et al. The sickness impact profile: validation of a health status measure. Med Care. 1976;14:57-67.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-197601000-00006
Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bullinger M, et al. The EORTC core quality of life questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. En: Osoba D, editor. Effects of cancer on quality of life. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1991. pp. 185-203.
Wright BD, Stone MH. Best test designs. Chicago: MESA Press; 1979.
Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561-73.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814
Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions. 1994;8:370.
Linacre JM. Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. J Appl Meas. 2002;3:85-106.
Franceschi S, Plummer M, Clifford G, et al. Differences in the risk of cervical cancer and human papillomavirus infection by education level. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:865-70.
https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6605224
Vega WA. Hispanic families in the 1980s: A decade of research. J Marriage Fam. 1990;52:1015-24.
https://doi.org/10.2307/353316
Dapueto JJ, Francolino C, Servente L, et al. Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Spanish Version 4 in South America: classic psychometric and item response theory analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2003;1:32.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-1-32
Scott NW, Fayers PM, Aaronson NK, et al. Differential item functioning (DIF) in the EORTC QLQ-C30: a comparison of baseline, on-treatment and off-treatment data. QualLife Res. 2009;18:381-8.
How to Cite
Downloads
Downloads
Issue
Section
License
Todos los derechos reservados.
| Article metrics | |
|---|---|
| Abstract views | |
| Galley vies | |
| PDF Views | |
| HTML views | |
| Other views | |
