Quality of Life Research

, Volume 2, Issue 4, pp 287–295 | Cite as

The European Organization for Research and treatment of cancer approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules

  • M. A. G. Sprangers
  • A. Cull
  • K. Bjordal
  • M. Groenvold
  • N. K. Aaronson
  • EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life
Special Report


The EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life (the Study Group) has adopted a modular approach to quality of life (QOL) assessment in cancer clinical trials. A ‘core’ instrument—the QLQ-C30—has been designed to cover a range of QOL issues relevant to a broad spectrum of cancer patients. It is intended that this QLQ-C30 be supplemented by more specific subscales (‘modules’) to assess aspects of QOL of particular importance to specific subgroups of patients. Since individual members of the Study Group were to be involved in module development, guidelines were required to standardize the module development process in order to ensure uniformly high quality across modules. These guidelines are presented in this paper. The term ‘module’ is defined, the composition of modules is outlined, and the criteria used to develop modules are specified. The module development process, consisting of four phases (generation of relevant QOL issues, operationalization of the QOL issues into a set of items, pretesting the module questionnaire, and large-scale field-testing) is described in detail. Further, issues related to cross-cultural instrument development, and the need for monitoring the module development process from within the Study Group are discussed. Finally, experiences with developing two site-specific modules (i.e., for head and neck, and breast cancer), are presented and the extent to which the guidelines meet practical requirements is discussed. The guidelines appear to provide a practical tool for module construction, that can facilitate the development of a comprehensive system for assessing the QOL of cancer patients internationally.


Quality of life assessment cross-cultural questionnaire construction 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bergner, M, Bobbit, RA, Carter, WB, Gilson, BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hunt, S, McKenna, SP, McEwen, J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15A: 221–229.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Meenan, RF, Gertman, PM, Mason, JH. Measuring health status in arthritis: The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Artritis Rheum 1980; 23: 146–152.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Schipper, H, Clinch, J, McMurray, A. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: The Functional Living Index-Cancer: Development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472–483.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schag, CC, Heinrich, RL. The CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES). Manual. Los Angeles: CARES Consultants, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Aaronson, NK, Bullinger, M, Ahmedzai, SA. A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Rec Results in Cancer Res 1988; 111: 231–247.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, SA, Bergman, B, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sprangers M, Cull A for the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Guidelines for Module Development. Amsterdam/Edinburgh: 1992, internal report.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, SA, Bullinger, M, et al. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba, D (ed). The Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boston: CRC Press. 1991: 185–204.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Belson, WR. The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions. Aldershot, England: Gower, 1982.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Converse JM, Presser S. Survey Questions. Handcrafting the Standard Questionnaire. Sage University Paper (63). Beverly Hills, 1986.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kornhauser, A, Sheatsley, PB. Questionnaire construction and interview procedure. In: Selltiz C, Wrightsman LS, Cook SW. Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Payne, SL. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schuman, H, Presser, S. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments of Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Studman, S, Bradburn, N. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aaronson, NK, Acquadro, C, Alonso, J, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality Life Res 1992; 1: 349–351.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hunt, SM. Cross-cultural issues in the use of sociomedical indicators. Health Policy 1986; 6: 149–158.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    European Group for Health Measurement and Quality of Life Assessment: Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, Niero M, Wiklund I, McKenna S. Cross cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991; 19: 33–44.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Deyo, RA. Pitfalls in measuring the health status of Mexican Americans: Comparative validity of the English and Spanish Impact Profile. Am J Public Health 1984; 74: 569–573.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bjordal, K, Kaasa, S, Ahlner-Elmqvist, M, Tollesson, E, Bonde, A. Development of a head and neck cancer-specific module for use with the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Quality Life Res. 1993; 2: 72.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sprangers M, Groenvold M, te Velde A, et al. for the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. The Construction of a Breast Cancer Module. Amsterdam: 1992, internal report.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Groenvold M. Quality of life in breast cancer adjuvant therapy. What should be measured? Poster presented at the ECCO-6, Florence, 1991.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gilson, BS, Erickson, D, Chavez, CT, Bobbit, RA, Bergner, M, Carter, WB. A chicano version of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). Culture Med Psychiatr 1980; 4: 137–150.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacobs, HM, Luttik, A, Touw-Otten, FWMM, Kastein, M, Melker, RAde. Measuring impact of sickness in patients with nonspecific abdominal complaints in a Dutch family practice setting. Med Care 1992; 30: 244–251.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Patrick, DL, Sittampalam, Y, Somerville, SM, Carter, WB, Bergner, M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Publ Health 1985; 75: 1402–1407.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Hunt, SM, Wiklund, I. Cross-cultural variation in the weighting of health statements: a comparison of English and Swedish valuations. Health Policy 1987; 8: 227–235.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alonso, J, Anto, JM, Moreno, C. Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity. Am J Publ Health 1990; 80: 704–708.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Cella, DF. Preliminary Manual Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Scales. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 1992.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Rapid Communications of Oxford Ltd 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. G. Sprangers
    • 1
  • A. Cull
    • 2
  • K. Bjordal
    • 3
  • M. Groenvold
    • 4
  • N. K. Aaronson
    • 1
  • EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life
  1. 1.Division of Psychosocial Research and EpidemiologyThe Netherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamthe Netherlands
  2. 2.ICRF Medical Oncology UnitWestern General HospitalEdinburghUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.The Norwegian Radium HospitalOsloNorway
  4. 4.Institute of Social MedicineUniversity of CopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations