The BREAST-Q: Further validation in independent clinical samples

Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery

Volumn 129, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 293-302

  Cano, Stefan J ^a   Klassen, Anne F ^a   Scott, Amie M ^a   Cordeiro, Peter G ^a   Pusic, Andrea L ^a,b  

^a MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b MEMORIAL SLOAN KETTERING CANCER CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BREAST RECONSTRUCTION; FEMALE; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; VALIDATION STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MAMMAPLASTY; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT SATISFACTION; QUESTIONNAIRES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84856731276     PISSN: 00321052     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec6b     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Pusic A, McCarthy C, Cano S, Klassen A, Kerrigan C. Clinical research in breast surgery: Reduction and postmastectomy reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2008;35:215-226.
2. Cano S, Klassen A, Scott A, Thoma A, Feeny D, Pusic A. Health outcome and economic measurement in breast cancer surgery: Challenges and opportunities. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010;10:583-594.
3. Committee on the Quality of Health Care in America. Crossing the Quality Chasm: The IOM Health Care Quality Initiative. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press 2001.
4. Cano S, Browne J, Lamping D. Patient-based measures of outcome in plastic surgery: Current approaches and future directions. Br J Plast Surg. 2004;57:1-11.
5. Pusic A, Chen C, Cano S, et al. Measuring quality of life in cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery: A systematic review of patient-reported outcomes instruments. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:823-837.
6. Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust. Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193-205.
7. Cano S, Hobart J. Watch out, watch out, the FDA are about. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2008;50:408-409.
8. Mokkink L, Terwee C, Patrick D, 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; 19:539-549.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Patient reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labelling claims [online]. Available at: Http://www.fda.gov/down loads/Drugs/GuidancecomplianceRegulatoryinformation/ guidelines/UCM193282.pdfwww.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/ GuidancecomplianceRegulatoryinformation/guidelines/ UCM193282.pdf. Accessed March 1, 2011.
10. Klassen A, Pusic A, Scott A, Klok J, Cano S. Satisfaction and quality of life in women who undergo breast surgery: A qualitative study. BMC Womens Health 2009;9:11-18.
11. Pusic A, Klassen A, Scott A, Klok J, Cordeiro P, Cano S. Development of a new patient reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009; 124:345-353.
12. Dillman D, Smyth J, Christian L. Internet, Mail, and Mixed-Mode Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. 3rd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
13. Rasch G. Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests. Chicago, Ill: The University of Chicago Press; 1980. Available at: Www.rasch.org/books.htm.
14. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978;43:561-573.
15. Andrich D. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Psychol Res. 1982;9:95-104.
16. Andrich D. Rasch Models for Measurement. Beverly Hills, Calif: Sage Publications; 1988.
17. Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic intervention in multiple sclerosis: The role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13:1-200.
18. Andrich D. Implication and applications of modern test theory in the context of outcomes based research. Stud Educ Eval. 2002;28:103-121.
19. Hobart J, Cano S, Zajicek J, Thompson A. Rating scales as outcome measures for clinical trials in neurology: Problems, solutions, and recommendations. Lancet Neurol. 2007;6: 1094-1105.
20. Andrich D, Sheridan B. RUMM 2030. Perth, Australia: RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd; 1997-2011.
21. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951;16:297-334.
22. Cano S, Browne J, Lamping D, Roberts A, McGrouther D, Black N. The Patient Outcomes of Surgery-Hand/Arm (POSHand/ Arm): A new patient-based outcome measure. J Hand Surg Br. 2004;29:477-485.
23. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Barry CC. Health status: Types of validity and the index of well-being. Health Serv Res. 1976; 11:478-507.
24. McHorney CA, Ware JEJ, Lu JFR, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36): III. Tests of data quality, scaling assumptions and reliability across diverse patient groups. Med Care 1994;32:40-66.
25. Bohrnstedt GW. Measurement. In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB, eds. Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press; 1983:69-121.
26. Ware JEJ, Kosinski MA, Keller SD. SF-36 Physical and Mental Health Summary Scales: A User's Manual. Boston, Mass: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1994.
27. Kerrigan C, Collins E, Striplin D, et al. The health burden of breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2001;108:1591-1599.
28. Aaronson N, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365-376.
29. Anderson R, Cunningham B, Tafesse E, Lenderking W. Validation of the breast evaluation questionnaire for use with breast surgery patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118:597-602.
30. Sigurdson L, Kirkland S, Mykhaloyskiy E. Validation of a questionnaire for measuring morbidity in breast hypertrophy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120:1108-1114.
31. Hopwood P, Fletcher I, Lee A, Al Ghazal S. A body image scale for use with cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2001;37:189-197.
32. Baxter N, Goodwin P, McLeod R, Dion R, Devins G, Bombardier C. Reliability and validity of the body image after breast cancer questionnaire. Breast J. 2006;12:221-232.
33. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric Theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.
34. Hays RD, Anderson R, Revicki DA. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res. 1993;2:441-449.
35. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: Are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293-307.
36. Hobart J, Cano S, Thompson A. Effect sizes can be misleading: Is it time to change the way we measure change? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2010;81:1044-1048.
37. McCarthy C, Klassen A, Cano S, et al. Patient satisfaction with postmastectomy breast reconstruction: A comparison of saline and silicone implants. Cancer 2010;116:5584-5591.
38. Hu E, Pusic A, Waljee J, et al. Patient-reported aesthetic satisfaction with breast reconstruction during the long-term survivorship period. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:1-8.
39. Reavey P, McCarthy C, Scott A, et al. Patients' perception of abdominal wall morbidity following abdominally based autologous tissue breast reconstruction: An outcomes analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123(Suppl. 6):11.
40. National Health Service Information Centre. National Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction Outcomes Audit. Leeds, UK: NHS Information Centre; 2011.
41. Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50:1129-1136.
42. Badger F, Werrett J. Room for improvement? Reporting response rates and recruitment in nursing research in the past decade. J Adv Nurs. 2005;51:502-510.
43. Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: A characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004;42:I7-I16.