Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Charlton, R., Dovey, S., & Mizushima, Y. (1993). National differences in breaking bad news. Medical Journal of Australia, 159, 72.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Tajima,T. (1997). Informed consent for patients with advanced cancer. Tokai Journal of Experimental and Clinical Medicine, 22(6), 271–274.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Mitchell, J. L. (1998). Cross-cultural issues in the disclosure of cancer. Cancer Pract, 6, 153–160.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Elwyn, T. S., Fetters, M. D., Sasaki, H., & Tsuda, T. (2002). Responsibility and cancer disclosure in Japan. Social Science & Medicine, 54, 281–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brüssel: EORTC.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Carlsson, M. (2000). Cancer patients seeking information from sources outside the health care system. Supportive Care in Cancer, 8, 453–457.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Bickeböller, R. (1999). Die Wahrheit wissen, aber nicht mitteilen dürfen—Zum Problem der Aufklärung am Krankenbett. Ethik in der Medizin, 11, 182–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was funded in part by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF; grant #01ZZ0106). We would like to acknowledge the time and effort all the participating patients have put into this investigation. Important contributions to this study were also provided by Oliver Krauß.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical Psychology and Medical Sociology, University of Leipzig, Philipp-Rosenthal-Str. 55, 04103, Leipzig, Germany

    Susanne Singer, Gregor Weißflog, Susanne Kuhnt & Jochen Ernst

  2. Department of Methods and Psychodiagnostics, University of Wuppertal, Wuppertal, Germany

    Philipp M. Engelberg

Authors
  1. Susanne Singer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Philipp M. Engelberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gregor Weißflog
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Susanne Kuhnt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Jochen Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Susanne Singer.

Additional information

Susanne Singer and Philipp M. Engelberg are equal contribution.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Singer, S., Engelberg, P.M., Weißflog, G. et al. Construct validity of the EORTC quality of life questionnaire information module. Qual Life Res 22, 123–129 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0114-x

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0114-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation