Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development of a computer-administered mobility questionnaire

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

Mobility is an important aspect of physical functioning, but feasible and validated self-report assessment instruments for palliative patients are lacking. This study is a part of the European Palliative Research Network research programme, aiming to develop an internationally endorsed assessment tool for symptoms and functioning in palliative cancer care. The specific aim of the present study is to assess psychometric properties of a mobility item bank, with regards to uni-dimensionality, functional coverage, redundant items and gaps in the scale.

Methods

A cross-sectional study with 604 responses from palliative cancer and 186 from chronic pain patients (mean age 59 ± 14 years, 55% female) was performed. A tablet computer with a touch- sensitive screen was used for data collection. An item pool of 21 mobility items, ranging from sitting without support to running were presented in random order, each scored on a four-category scale rating the difficulty in performing the activity. Psychometric properties were assessed by exploratory factor analysis, internal consistency and item response theory.

Results

The mobility scale can be regarded as uni-dimensional and has good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.97). Items had a wide functional coverage from low to high functioning. Two items were with poor psychometric properties and two redundant items were removed. There were no obvious gaps in the scale.

Conclusions

The psychometric properties of the scale are good and the next step is to make a pre-programmed version of the scale to be used in a pan-European study.

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
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Jordhoy MS, Fayers P, Loge JH, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, Kaasa S (2001) Quality of life in palliative cancer care: results from a cluster randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 15;19(18):3884–3894

    Google Scholar 

  2. Fearon KC (2008) Cancer cachexia: developing multimodal therapy for a multidimensional problem. Eur J Cancer 44(8):1124–1132

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Silver HJ, Dietrich MS, Murphy BA (2007) Changes in body mass, energy balance, physical function, and inflammatory state in patients with locally advanced head and neck cancer treated with concurrent chemoradiation after low-dose induction chemotherapy. Head Neck 29(10):893–900

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elmqvist MA, Jordhoy MS, Bjordal K, Kaasa S, Jannert M (2009) Health-related quality of life during the last three months of life in patients with advanced cancer. Support Care Cancer 17(2):191–198

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Cohen SR, Leis A (2002) What determines the quality of life of terminally ill cancer patients from their own perspective? J Palliat Care 18(1):48–58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ringdal GI, Gotestam KG, Kaasa S, Kvinnsland S, Ringdal K (1996) Prognostic factors and survival in a heterogeneous sample of cancer patients. Br J Cancer 73(12):1594–1599

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Ringdal GI, Ringdal K (1993) Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 2(2):129–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Cella DF, Bonomi AE, Lloyd SR, Tulsky DS, Kaplan E, Bonomi P (1995) Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) quality of life instrument. Lung Cancer 12(3):199–220

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Nikoletti S, Porock D, Kristjanson LJ, Medigovich K, Pedler P, Smith M (2000) Performance status assessment in home hospice patients using a modified form of the Karnofsky Performance Status Scale. J Palliat Med 3(3):301–311

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. World Health Organization (1979) Handbook for reporting results of cancer treatment. WHO Offset Publication, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  11. Guyatt GH, Deyo RA, Charlson M, Levine MN, Mitchell A (1989) Responsiveness and validity in health status measurement: a clarification. J Clin Epidemiol 42(5):403–408

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. WHO (2001) International classification of functioning, disability and health. WHO, Genova

    Google Scholar 

  13. Jordhoy MS, Inger RG, Helbostad JL, Oldervoll L, Loge JH, Kaasa S (2007) Assessing physical functioning: a systematic review of quality of life measures developed for use in palliative care. Palliat Med 21(8):673–682

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. DeWalt DA, Rothrock N, Yount S, Stone AA (2007) Evaluation of item candidates: the PROMIS qualitative item review. Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S12–S21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Thissen D, Reeve BB, Bjorner JB, Chang CH (2007) Methodological issues for building item banks and computerized adaptive scales. Qual Life Res 16(Suppl 1):109–119

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Cook KF, Teal CR, Bjorner JB, Cella D, Chang CH, Crane PK et al (2007) IRT health outcomes data analysis project: an overview and summary. Qual Life Res 16(suppl 1):121–132

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Reeve BB, Hays RD, Bjorner JB, Cook KF, Crane PK, Teresi JA et al (2007) Psychometric evaluation and calibration of health-related quality of life item banks: plans for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S22–S31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Bjorner JB, Petersen MA, Groenvold M, Aaronson N, Ahlner-Elmqvist M, Arraras JI et al (2004) Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale. Qual Life Res 13(10):1683–1697

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  19. Hays RD, Liu H, Spritzer K, Cella D (2007) Item response theory analyses of physical functioning items in the medical outcomes study. Med Care 45(5 Suppl 1):S32–S38

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Haley SM, Coster WJ, Andres PL, Ludlow LH, Ni P, Bond TL et al (2004) Activity outcome measurement for postacute care. Med Care 42(1 Suppl):I49–I61

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Farin E, Fleitz A, Frey C (2007) Psychometric properties of an International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-oriented, adaptive questionnaire for the assessment of mobility, self-care and domestic life. J Rehabil Med 39(7):537–546

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Helbostad JL, Holen JC, Jordhoy MS, Ringdal GI, Oldervoll L, Kaasa S (2009) A first step in the development of an international self-report instrument for physical functioning in palliative cancer care: a systematic literature review and an expert opinion evaluation study. J Pain Symptom Manage 37(2):196–205

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kaasa S, Loge JH, Fayers P, Caraceni A, Strasser F, Hjermstad MJ et al (2008) Symptom assessment in palliative care: a need for international collaboration. J Clin Oncol 26(23):3867–3873

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fayers PM, Hjermstad MJ, Ranhoff AH, Kaasa S, Skogstad L, Klepstad P et al (2005) Which mini-mental state exam items can be used to screen for delirium and cognitive impairment? J Pain Symptom Manage 30(1):41–50

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. StataCorp (2007) STATA Statistical Software: Release 10. StataCorp LP, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  26. Windows (2003) PARSCALE for Windows (Computer program)Version 4.1. Scientific Software International, Lincolnwood

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kennedy CA, Wilson MR, Draney K, Tutunciyan S, Vorp R (2007) ConstructMap 4.3. BEAR Center, University of California, Berkeley

    Google Scholar 

  28. McDonald RP (1981) The dimensionality of tests and items. Br J Math Stat Psychol 34:100–117

    Google Scholar 

  29. Reise SP, Morizot J, Hays RD (2007) The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures. Quality of Life Research 16(suppl 1):19–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bock RD (1972) Estimating item parameters and latent ability when responses are scored in two or more nominal categories. Psychometrika 37:29–51

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zumbo BD (1999) A Handbook on the Theory and Methods of Differential Item Functioning (DIF): Logistic regression modeling as a unitary framework for binary and likert-type (Ordinal) item scores. Directorate of Human Resources Research and Evaluation, Department of National Defence, Ottawa

    Google Scholar 

  32. Crane PK, van BG, Larson EB (2004) Test bias in a cognitive test: differential item functioning in the CASI. Stat Med 23(2):241–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Ferguson GA (1941) The factorial interpretation of test difficulty. Psychometrika 6:323–329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Gibson WA (1960) Nonlinear factors in two dimensions. Psychometrika 25:381–392

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Fyllingen EH, Oldervoll LM, Loge JH et al (2009) Computer-based assessment of symptoms and mobility in palliative care: feasibility and challenges. J Pain Symptom Manage 38(6):827–836

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by contract LSHC-CT-2006-037777 of the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Programme, with an overall aim to improve treatment of pain, depression and fatigue through translation research. The authors thank the staff at the Palliative Care Units in Norway and staff at the Pain Clinic at St. Olav University for help with inclusion of patients and data collection. JLH was supported by grants from the Health authorities in Mid-Norway, and LMO by grants from the Norwegian Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation and the Norwegian Cancer Society.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Neuroscience, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Olav Kyrres g, 7006, Trondheim, Norway

    Jorunn L. Helbostad

  2. St. Olav University Hospital, Trondheim, Norway

    Jorunn L. Helbostad & Stein Kaasa

  3. Pain and Palliation Research Group, Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Jorunn L. Helbostad, Line M. Oldervoll, Peter M. Fayers, Marit S. Jordhøy & Stein Kaasa

  4. Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Medical School, Aberdeen, UK

    Peter M. Fayers

  5. Cancer Unit, Department of Internal Medicine-Gjøvik, Innlandet Hospital Trust, Gjøvik, Norway

    Marit S. Jordhøy

  6. Clinical and Surgical Sciences (Surgery), University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK

    Kenneth C. H. Fearon

  7. Oncology Palliative Medicine, Section of Oncology, Department of Internal Medicine and the Palliative Care Centre, Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen, Switzerland

    Florian Strasser

Authors
  1. Jorunn L. Helbostad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Line M. Oldervoll
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Peter M. Fayers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marit S. Jordhøy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kenneth C. H. Fearon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Florian Strasser
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Stein Kaasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jorunn L. Helbostad.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Helbostad, J.L., Oldervoll, L.M., Fayers, P.M. et al. Development of a computer-administered mobility questionnaire. Support Care Cancer 19, 745–755 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0867-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-010-0867-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation