Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Development of a Korean version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity

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

Abstract

Purpose

(1) To translate original English Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ) into Korean and perform validation, (2) to compare CTSQ domains of expectations of therapy (ET), feelings about side effects (FSE), and satisfaction with therapy (SWT) by cancer therapy type.

Methods

Cross-cultural adaptation was performed according to guidelines: translation, back translation, focus-group, and field test. We performed validation with internal consistency by Cronbach’s alpha and construct validity by exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with varimax rotation method. We compared each CTSQ domain between traditional Korean Medicine (TKM) and integrative cancer therapy (ICT) of combining western and TKM by two-sample t test.

Results

Cross-cultural adaptation produced no major modifications in the items and domains. A total of 102 outpatients were participated. Mean age was 51.9 ± 12.4. Most were stage 4 (74.4 %) cancer. Mean scores of ET, FSE, and SWT were 81.2 ± 15.7, 79.5 ± 22.9, and 75.7 ± 14.8, respectively. Cronbach’s alpha of ET, FSE, and SWT were 0.86, 0.78, and 0.74, respectively. EFA loaded items on the three domains, which is very close to that of the original CTSQ. ET and SWT was similar, but FSE was significantly higher in TKM than ICT (87.5 ± 19.3 vs. 74.9 ± 23.5; p = 0.0054).

Conclusions

Cross-cultural adaptation was successful, and the adapted Korean CTSQ demonstrated good internal consistency and construct validity. Similar expectation and satisfaction was shown between the two types of therapy, but patient’s reported feelings about side effects was significantly lower in patients receiving TKM than receiving ICT. Korean version of CTSQ can be used to evaluate Korean cancer patient’s experiences receiving various cancer therapy types.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Trask, P., Tellefsen, C., Espindle, D., et al. (2008). Psychometric validation of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire. Value in Health, 11(4), 669–679.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Speight, J. (2005). Assessing patient satisfaction: Concepts, applications, and measurement. Value in Health, 8S(1), S6–S8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Wiggers, J. H., Donovan, K. O., Esdman, S., & Sanson-Fisher, R. W. (1990). Cancer patient satisfaction with care. Cancer, 66, 610–616.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Abetz, L., Coombs, J., Keininger, D., et al. (2005). Development of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire: Item generation and content validity testing. Value in Health, 8(S1), S41–S53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., On behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Study Group, et al. (1999). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (2nd ed.). Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Atkinson, M. J., Sinha, A., Haas, S. I., et al. (2004). Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 2, 12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS ® system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Greene, F. L., Page, D. L., Fleming, I. D., Fritz, A., Balch, C. M., Haller, D. G., et al. (2002). AJCC cancer staging manual (6th ed.). New York, NY, USA: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Fritz, A., Percy, C., Jack, A., Shanmugarathan, S., Sobin, L., Parkin, D. M., et al. (2000). International classification of diseases for oncology (ICD-O) (3rd ed.). Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Fayers, P., & Machin, D. (2001). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis and interpretation. New York, NY, USA: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Choi, W. C., Lee, J. H., Lee, E. O., et al. (2006). Study on antiangiogenic and antitumor activities of processed Rhus verniciflua Stokes extract. Korean Journal of Oriental Physiology & Pathology, 20, 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Choi, W. C., Sminova, Z., Kubasova, I., et al. (2002). Antitumor efficacy of the allergen removed extract in Rhus verniciflua. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 17S, S78–S79.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Lee, S. H., Choi, W. C., & Yoon, S. W. (2009). Impact of standardized Rhus verniciflua Stokes extract as complementary therapy on metastatic colorectal cancer: A Korean single-center experience. Integrative Cancer Therapies, 8, 148–152.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee, S. H., Kim, K. S., Choi, W. C., & Yoon, S. W. (2009). Successful outcome of advanced pulmonary adenocarcinoma with malignant pleural effusion by the standardized Rhus verniciflua Stokes extract: A case study. Explore, 5, 242–244.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in social research (5th ed.). Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). The assessment of reliability. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Chassany, O., Sagnier, P., & Marquis, P. (2002). Patient-reported outcomes: The example of health-related quality of life—A European guidance document for the improved integration of health-related quality of life assessment in the drug regulatory process. Drug Information Journal, 36, 209–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Andresen, E. M. (2000). Criteria for assessing the tools of disability outcomes research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 81(12 Suppl 2), S15–S20.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Fitzpatrick, R., Davey, C., Buxton, M. J., & Jones, D. R. (1998). Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment, 2(14):i–iv, 1–74.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Portney, L., Watkins, M., et al. (2000). Foundations of clinical research: Applications to practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a grant from the Kyung Hee University in 2009 (KHU-20081270).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Se Hyun Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, S.J., An, S.M. & Kim, S.H. Development of a Korean version of the Cancer Therapy Satisfaction Questionnaire (CTSQ): cross-cultural adaptation, reliability, and validity. Qual Life Res 22, 431–436 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0164-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0164-0

Keywords

Navigation