Comparability of interview- and self-administration of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) in english- and Spanish-speaking ambulatory cancer patients

Medical Care

Volumn 46, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 423-431

  Hahn, Elizabeth A ^a,b,c   Rao, Deepa ^a,c   Cella, David ^a,c,d   Choi, Seung W ^a,c  

^a EVANSTON NORTHWESTERN HEALTHCARE   (United States)

^b Department of Preventive Medicine ^*

^c Institute for Healthcare Studies

^d NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

FACT G; Mode effect; Quality of life

Indexed keywords

AMBULATORY CARE; ARTICLE; CAUCASIAN; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMMUNICATION DISORDER; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; ETHNOLOGY; FEMALE; HISPANIC; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEGRO; NEOPLASM; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PSYCHOMETRY; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SOCIOECONOMICS;

AFRICAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; AMBULATORY CARE; COMMUNICATION BARRIERS; EUROPEAN CONTINENTAL ANCESTRY GROUP; FEMALE; HISPANIC AMERICANS; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; NEOPLASMS; PSYCHOMETRICS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; SEVERITY OF ILLNESS INDEX; SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS;

EID: 41149149584     PISSN: 00257079     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181648e6e     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Cella DF, Lloyd SR. Data collection strategies for patient-reported information. Qual Manag Health Care. 1994;2:28-35.
2. Fowler FJ Jr. Data collection methods. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippin-cott-Raven Publishers; 1996.
3. Naughton MJ, Shumaker SA, Anderson RT Psychological aspects of health-related quality of life measurement: tests and scales. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott-Raven; 1996.
4. Selltiz C, Wrightsman LS, Cook SW. Research Methods in Social Relations. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston; 1976.
5. Edwards AL. Techniques of Attitude Scale Construction. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts; 1957.
6. Crowne DP, Marlowe D. The Approval Motive: Studies in Evaluative Dependence. New York, NY: Wiley; 1964.
7. Anderson JP, Bush JW, Berry CC. Classifying function for health outcome and quality-of-life evaluation. Self- versus interviewer modes. Med Care. 1986;24:454-469.
8. Cook DJ, Guyatt GH, Juniper E, et al. Interviewer versus self-administered questionnaires in developing a disease-specific, health-related quality of life instrument for asthma. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46:529-534.
9. McHorney CA, Kosinski M, Ware JE Jr. Comparisons of the costs and quality of norms for the SF-36 health survey collected by mail versus telephone interview: results from a national survey. Med Care. 1994; 32:551-567.
10. Chan KS, Orlando M, Ghosh-Dastidar B, et al. The interview mode effect on the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression (CES-D) scale: an item response theory analysis. Med Care. 2004;42:281-289.
11. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, et al. Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration? J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:135-140.
12. Chambers LW, Haight M, Norman G, et al. Sensitivity to change and the effect of mode of administration on health status measurement. Med Care. 1987;25:470-480.
13. Wu AW, Jacobson DL, Berzon RA, et al. The effect of mode of administration on medical outcomes study health ratings and EuroQol scores in AIDS. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:3-10.
14. Bowling A. Mode of questionnaire administration can have serious effects on data quality. J Public Health. 2005;27:281-291.
15. Teresi JA. Overview of quantitative measurement methods: equivalence, invariance, and differential item functioning in health applications. Med Care. 2006;44(11 suppl 3):S39-S49.
16. Teresi JA. Different approaches to differential item functioning in health applications: advantages, disadvantages and some neglected topics. Med Care. 2006;44(11 suppl 3):S152-S170.
17. Borsboom D. When does measurement invariance matter? Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S176-S181.
18. Hambleton RK. Good practices for identifying differential item functioning. Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S182-S188.
19. McHorney CA, Fleishman JA. Assessing and understanding measurement equivalence in health outcome measures: issues for further quantitative and qualitative inquiry. Med Care. 2006;44(11 Suppl 3):S205-S210.
20. Cella DF, Bonomi AE. The functional assessment of cancer therapy (FACT) and functional assessment of HIV infection (FAHI) quality of life measurement system. In: Spilker B, ed. Quality of Life Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical Trials. Philadelphia, PA: Lippineott-Raven Publisher; 1996:203-214.
21. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al. The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. J Clin Oncol. 1993;11:570-579.
22. Cella D, Hernandez L, Bonomi AE, et al. Spanish language translation and initial validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy quality-of-life instrument. Med Care. 1998;36:1407-1418.
23. Strahan R, Gerbasi KC. Short, homogeneous versions of the MarloweCrowne Social Desirability Scale. J Clin Psychol. 1972;28:191-193.
24. Woodcock RW. Examiner's Manual: Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised. Allen, TX: DLM Publisher; 1991.
25. Muthen LK, Muthen BO. Mplus User's Guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen; 2006.
26. Flora DB, Curran PJ. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychol Methods. 2004;9:466-491.
27. Hu L, Bentler PM. Evaluating model fit. In: Hoyle RH, ed. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues and Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995.
28. Marsh HW, Hau KT, Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Struct Equation Model. 2004;11:320-341.
29. Andrich D. Scaling attitude items constructed and scored in the Likert tradition. Educ Psychol Meas. 1978;38:665-680.
30. Wright BD, Masters GN. Rating Scale Analysis: Rasch Measurement. Chicago, IL: MESA Press; 1982.
31. Linacre JM. A User's Guide to WINSTEPS/MINISTEP: Rasch-Model Computer Programs. Chicago, IL: Winsteps; 2005.
32. Wright BD, Linacre JM. Reasonable mean square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans. 1994;8:370.
33. Holland PW, Wainer H. Differential Item Functioning. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates; 1993.
34. Hudgens S, Dineen K, Webster K, et al. Assessing statistically and clinically meaningful construct deficiency/saturation: recommended criteria for content coverage and item writing. Rasch Meas Trans. 2004; 17:954-955.
35. Mantel N. Chi-square tests with one degree of freedom: extensions of the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. J Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58:690-700.
36. Liu I-M, Agresti A. Mantel-Haenszel-type inference for cumulative odds ratios with a stratified ordinal response. Biometrics. 1996;52:1223-1234.
37. Penfield RD. DIFAS. Differential item functioning analysis system. Appl Psychol Meas. 2006;29:150-151.
38. Holland PW, Thayer DT. Differential item performance and the Mantel-Haenszel procedure. In: Wainer H, Braun HI, eds. Test Validity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1988.
39. Hollingshead AB. Index of social status. In: Manger DJ, Peterson WA, eds. Research Instruments in Social Gerontology. Vol. 2: Social Roles and Social Participation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press; 1982:314-316, 326-336.
40. Zubrod C, Schneiderman M, Frei E III, et al. Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene. J Chronic Dis. 1960;11:7-33.
41. Yost KJ, Eton DT. Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience. Eval Health Prof. 2005;28:172-191.
42. Schag CA, Ganz PA, Wing DS, et al. Quality of life in adult survivors of lung, colon and prostate cancer. Qual Life Res. 1994;3:127-141.
43. Rustoen T, Mourn T, Wiklund I, et al. Quality of life in newly diagnosed cancer patients. J Adv Nurs. 1999;29:490-498.
44. Ramsey SD, Andersen MR, Etzioni R, et al. Quality of life in survivors of colorectal carcinoma. Cancer. 2000;88:1294-1303.
45. Parker PA, Baile WF, de Moor C, et al. Psychosocial and demographic predictors of quality of life in a large sample of cancer patients. Psychooncology. 2003;12:183-193.
46. Hays RD, Morales LS, Reise SP. Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl):II-28-11-42.
47. Cella D, Chang CH. A discussion of item response theory (IRT) and its applications in health status assessment. Med Care. 2000;38(9 Suppl): II66-II72.
48. van der Linden WJ, Hambleton RK. Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag; 1997.
49. Hahn EA, Cella D. Unbiased quality of life measurement across literacy levels and mode of administration. Qual Life Res. 1997;6:654.
50. Lord FM. Applications of Item Response Theory to Practical Testing Problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum; 1980.