Effects of mode of administration (MOA) on the measurement properties of the EORTC QLQ-C30: A randomized study

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Volumn 8, Issue , 2010, Pages

  Gundy, Chad M ^a   Aaronson, Neil K ^a  

^a NETHERLANDS CANCER INSTITUTE   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT;

ADULT; AGED; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER CHEMOTHERAPY; CANCER RADIOTHERAPY; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONTROLLED STUDY; CRONBACH ALPHA COEFFICIENT; FEMALE; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LUNG CANCER; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; NETHERLANDS; POSTAL MAIL; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRE; RANDOMIZATION; SCORING SYSTEM; TELEPHONE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASM; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; REPRODUCIBILITY;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; HUMANS; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; NEOPLASMS; NETHERLANDS; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUESTIONNAIRES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 77950385770     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14777525     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-8-35     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Barry MJ, Fowler FJ, Chang Y, Liss CL, Wilson H, Stek M. The American Urological Association symptom index: does mode of administration affect its psychometric properties?. J Urol 1995, 154:1056-1059. 10.1016/S0022-5347(01)66975-1, 7543597.
2. Weinberger M, Oddone EZ, Samsa GP, Landsman PB. Are health-related quality-of-life measures affected by the mode of administration?. J Clin Epidemiol 1996, 49:135-140. 10.1016/0895-4356(95)00556-0, 8606314.
3. Vereecken CA, Maes L. Comparison of a computer-administered and paper-and-pencil-administered questionnaire on health and lifestyle behaviors. J Adolesc Health 2006, 38:426-432. 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2004.10.010, 16549304.
4. Fouladi RT, McCarthy CJ, Moller NP. Paper-and-pencil or online? Evaluating mode effects on measures of emotional functioning and attachment. Assessment 2002, 9:204-215. 10.1177/10791102009002011, 12066835.
5. Rhodes T, Girman CJ, Jacobsen SJ, Guess HA, Hanson KA, Oesterling JE, Lieber MM. Does the mode of questionnaire administration affect the reporting of urinary symptoms?. Urology 1995, 46:341-345. 10.1016/S0090-4295(99)80217-9, 7660509.
6. Wu AW, Jacobson DL, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, Horst C, Fichtenbaum CJ, Saag MS, Lynn L, Hardy D, Feinberg J. The effect of mode of administration on Medical Outcomes Study health ratings and EuroQol scores in AIDS. Quality of Life Research 1997, 6:0.
7. Weinberger M, Nagle B, Hanlon JT, Samsa GP, Schmader K, Landsman PB, Uttech KM, Cowper PA, Cohen HJ, Feussner JR. Assessing health-related quality of life in elderly outpatients: telephone versus face-to-face administration. J Am Geriatr Soc 1994, 41:1295-1299.
8. Jorngarden A, Wettergen L, von Essen L. Measuring health-related quality of life in adolescents and young adults: Swedish normative data for the SF-36 and the HADS, and the influence of age, gender, and method of administration. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:91. 10.1186/1477-7525-4-91, 1697805, 17140436.
9. Perkins JJ, Sanson-Fisher RW. An examination of self- and telephone-administered modes of administration for the Australian SF-36. J Clin Epidemiol 1998, 51:969-973. 10.1016/S0895-4356(98)00088-2, 9817114.
10. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, De Haes JC. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993, 85:365-376. 10.1093/jnci/85.5.365, 8433390.
11. Osoba D, Aaronson NK, Zee B, et al. Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1997, 6:103-108. 10.1023/A:1026429831234, 9161109.
12. Aaronson NK, Cull A, Kaasa S, Sprangers MAG. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: an update. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials 1996, 179-189. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, Spilker B, 2.
13. Fayers PM, Aaronson N, Bjordal K, Groenvold M, Curran D, Bottomley A, . on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual 2001, Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group.
14. Cheung YB, Goh C, Thumboo J, Khoo KS, Wee J. Quality of life scores differed according to mode of administration in a review of three major oncology questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 2006, 59:185-191. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.06.011, 16426954.
15. Velikova G, Wright EP, Smith AB, Cull A, Gould A, Forman D, Perren T, Sted M, Brown J, Selby PJ. Automated collection of quality-of-life data: a comparisons of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. J Clin Oncol 1999, 17:998-1007.
16. te Velde A, Sprangers M, Aaronson NK. Feasibility, psychometric performance, and stability across modes of administration of the CARES-SF. Annals of Oncology 1996, 7:381-390.
17. Karnofsky D, Burchenal J. The clinical evaluation of chemotherapeutic agents in cancer. Evaluation of Chemotherapeutic Agents 1949, New York: Columbia University Press, MacLeod C.
18. Hjermstad MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S. Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. J CLIN ONCOL 1995, 13:1249-1254.
19. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951, 16:297-334.
20. Lautenschlager GJ. ALPHATST: Testing for differences in coefficient alpha. Appl Psychol Meas 1989, 13:284.
21. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences 1988, Hillsdale, New Yersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
22. Osoba D, Rodrigues G, Myles J, Zee B, Pater J. Interpreting the Significance of Changes in Health-Related Quality-of-Life Scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1998, 16(1):139-144.