Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-02-2013

Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module

Auteurs: Susanne Singer, Philipp M. Engelberg, Gregor Weißflog, Susanne Kuhnt, Jochen Ernst

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2013

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

Providing sufficient information about diagnosis and treatment is an important feature of high-quality patient care in oncology. To measure patient satisfaction with information received, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Group has recently developed a new tool, the information module (INFO25). The aim of this study was to evaluate the scale structure of the INFO25.

Methods

A total of n = 423 patients completed the INFO25 after finishing cancer therapy. The internal consistency of multi-item subscales was calculated using Cronbach’s Alpha. The scale structure was evaluated using multi-trait methods and confirmatory factor analysis.

Results

Cronbach’s Alpha of the multi-item scales ranged from 0.79 to 0.88. Only two items correlated somewhat higher with another scale than with their own, indicating a good scale structure. Construct validity with latent variable models, including a general information factor and four multi-item scales, resulted in the following fit indices CFI = 0.96, RMSEA = 0.08, TLI = 0.99 and WRMR = 1.03.

Conclusion

The suggested construct of the INFO25 with a total score (general factor) in addition to the subscales is valid.
vorige artikel The Caregivers Quality of Life Cancer index scale (CQoLC): an exploratory factor analysis for validation in French cancer patients’ spouses
volgende artikel Validation of a new patient-generated questionnaire for quality of life in an urban sample of elder residents
Literatuur
1.
Baron, G., & Poveda, J. (1993). In Scientific Foundation of the Spanish Association Against Cancer (Ed.), Information to the terminal patient: the bearable truth, in Information on cancer patient diagnosis (p. 119). ALVE, Mayo.
2.
Barnett, M. M., Devrell, C., Barrington, M., & McMichael, H. (1995). Information needs of patients with advanced cancer—How much do they know and does this match what they want to know? Psycho-Oncology, 4, 83.CrossRef
3.
Fielding, R., & Hung, J. (1996). Preferences for information and involvement in decisions during cancer care among a Hong Kong Chinese population. Psycho-Oncology, 5, 321–329.CrossRef
4.
Degner, L. F., Kristjanson, L. J., Bowman, D., Sloan, J. A., Carriere, K. C., O’Neil, J., et al. (1997). Information needs and decisional preferences in women with breast cancer. JAMA, 277, 1485–1492.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.PubMed
6.
Tamburini, M., Gangeri, L., Brunelli, C., Beltrami, E., Boeri, P., Borreani, C., et al. (2000). Assessment of hospitalised cancer patients’ needs by the needs evaluation questionnaire. Annals of Oncology, 11, 31–37.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Cassileth, B. R., Zupkis, R. V., Sutton-Smith, K., & March, V. (1980). Information and participation preferences among cancer patients. Annals of Internal Medicine, 92, 832–836.PubMed
8.
Charlton, R., Dovey, S., & Mizushima, Y. (1993). National differences in breaking bad news. Medical Journal of Australia, 159, 72.PubMed
9.
Tajima,T. (1997). Informed consent for patients with advanced cancer. Tokai Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, 22(6), 271–274.
10.
Mitchell, J. L. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in the disclosure of cancer. Cancer Pract, 6, 153–160.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Horikawa, N., Yamazaki, T., Sagawa, M., & Nagata, T. (1999). The disclosure of information to cancer patients and its relationship to their mental state in a consultation-liaison psychiatry setting in Japan. General Hospital Psychiatry, 21, 368–373.PubMedCrossRef
12.
Horikawa, N., Yamazaki, T., Sagawa, M., & Nagata, T. (2000). Changes in disclosure of information to cancer patients in a general hospital in Japan. General Hospital Psychiatry, 22, 37–42.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Elwyn, T. S., Fetters, M. D., Sasaki, H., & Tsuda, T. (2002). Responsibility and cancer disclosure in Japan. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 281–293.CrossRef
14.
Younge, D., Moreau, P., Ezzat, A., & Gray, A. (1997). Communicating with cancer patients in Saudi Arabia. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 809, 309–316.PubMedCrossRef
15.
Baile, W. F., Buckman, R., Lenzi, R., Glober, G., Beale, E. A., & Kudelka, A. P. (2000). SPIKES—A six-step protocol for delivering bad news: Application to the patient with cancer. Oncologist, 5, 302–311.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Betson, C. L., Fielding, R., Wong, G., Chung, S. F., & Nestel, D. F. (1997). Evaluation of two videotape instruction programmes on how to break bad news—For Cantonese-speaking medical students in Hong Kong. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 20, 172–177.
17.
Fallowfield, L., Lipkin, M., & Hall, A. (1998). Teaching senior oncologists communication skills: Results from phase I of a comprehensive longitudinal program in the United Kingdom. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16, 1961–1968.PubMed
18.
Arraras, J. I., Kuljanic-Vlasic, K., Björdal, K., Yun, Y. H., Efficace, F., Holzner, B., et al. (2007). EORTC QLQ-INFO26: A questionnaire to assess information given to cancer patients—a preliminary analysis in eight countries. Psycho-Oncology, 16, 249–254.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Arraras, J. I., Greimel, E., Sezer, O., Chie, W. C., Bergenmar, M., Costantini, A., et al. (2010). An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: An instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. European Journal of Cancer, 46, 2726–2738.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brüssel: EORTC.
21.
Schulze, R. (2005). Modeling structures of intelligence. In O. Wilhelm & R. W. Engle (Eds.), Handbook of understanding and measuring intelligence (pp. 241–263). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.CrossRef
22.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRef
23.
Yu, C. (2002). Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
24.
Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2002). Mplus User’s Guide (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.
25.
SPSS Inc. (2006). SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
26.
Parker, P. A., Baile, W. F., De Moor, C., Lenzi, R., Kudelka, A. P., & Cohen, L. (2001). Breaking bad news about cancer: Patients’ preferences for communication. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 19, 2049–2056.PubMed
27.
Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.PubMed
28.
Feldman-Stewart, D., Brundage, M. D., Hayter, C., Groome, P., Nickel, J. C., Downes, H. et al. (2000). What questions do patients with curable prostate cancer want answered? Medical Decision Making, 20(1), 7–19.
29.
Girgis, A., Boyes, A., Sanson-Fisher, R. W., & Burrows, S. (2000). Perceived needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: Rural versus urban location. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 24, 166–173.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Leydon, G. M., Boulton, M., Moynihan, C., Jones, A., Mossman, J., Boudioni, M., et al. (2000). Cancer patients’ information needs and information seeking behaviour: in depth interview study. BMJ, 320, 909–913.PubMedCrossRef
31.
Payne, S., Large, S., Jarrett, N., & Turner, P. (2000). Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: A national survey. Lancet, 355, 1792.PubMedCrossRef
32.
Benowitz, S. (1999). To tell the truth: A cancer diagnosis in other cultures is often a family affair. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 91, 1918–1919.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Bickeböller, R. (1999). Die Wahrheit wissen, aber nicht mitteilen dürfen—Zum Problem der Aufklärung am Krankenbett. Ethik in der Medizin, 11, 182–189.CrossRef
34.
Carlsson, M. E., Strang, P. M., & Nygren, U. (1999). Qualitative analysis of the questions raised by patients with gynecologic cancers and their relatives in an educational support group. Journal of Cancer Education, 14, 41–46.PubMed
35.
Davidson, J. R., Brundage, M. D., & Feldman-Stewart, D. (1999). Lung cancer treatment decisions: Patients’ desires for participation and information. Psychooncology, 8, 511–520.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module
Auteurs
Susanne Singer
Philipp M. Engelberg
Gregor Weißflog
Susanne Kuhnt
Jochen Ernst
Publicatiedatum
01-02-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2013
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0114-x

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2013

Measuring preference-based quality of life in children aged 6–7 years: a comparison of the performance of the CHU-9D and EQ-5D-Y—the WAVES Pilot Study

Worsening trends and increasing disparities in health-related quality of life: evidence from two French population-based cross-sectional surveys, 1995–2003

The Caregivers Quality of Life Cancer index scale (CQoLC): an exploratory factor analysis for validation in French cancer patients’ spouses

  • Brief Communication

The health-related quality of life burden of co-morbid cardiovascular disease and major depressive disorder in Australia: findings from a population-based, cross-sectional study

  • Open Access

Validation of the Brazilian version of Chronic Liver Disease Questionnaire

  • Brief Communication

Validation of a new patient-generated questionnaire for quality of life in an urban sample of elder residents

  • Brief Communication