Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 10, pp 1683–1697

Use of item response theory to develop a shortened version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning scale

  • J.B. Bjorner
  • M.Aa. Petersen
  • M. Groenvold
  • N. Aaronson
  • M. Ahlner-elmqvist
  • J.I. Arraras
  • A. Brédart
  • P. Fayers
  • M. Jordhoy
  • M. Sprangers
  • M. Watson
  • T. Young
Article

Abstract

Background: As part of a larger study whose objective is to develop an abbreviated version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 suitable for research in palliative care, analyses were conducted to determine the feasibility of generating a shorter version of the 4-item emotional functioning (EF) scale that could be scored in the original metric. Methods: We used data from 24 European cancer studies conducted in 10 different languages (n=8242). Item selection was based on analyses by item response theory (IRT). Based on the IRT results, a simple scoring algorithm was developed to predict the original 4-item EF sum scale score from a reduced number of items. Results: Both a 3-item and a 2-item version (item 21 ‘Did you feel tense?’ and item 24 ‘Did you feel depressed?’) predicted the total score with excellent agreement and very little bias. In group comparisons, the 2-item scale led to the same conclusions as those based on the original 4-item scale with little or no loss of measurement efficiency. Conclusion: Although these results are promising, confirmatory studies are needed based on independent samples. If such additional studies yield comparable results, incorporation of the 2-item EF scale in an abbreviated version of the QLQ-C30 for use in palliative care research settings would be justified. The analyses reported here demonstrate the usefulness of the IRT-based methodology for shortening questionnaire scales.

Keywords

Cancer IRT Palliative care Prediction Quality of Life Shortening of scales 

Abbreviations

DIF

differential item functioning

EAP

expected a posteriori

EF

emotional function

EORTC

European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

IIF

item information function

IRT

item response theory

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Johnston, G, Abraham, C 1995The WHO objectives for palliative care: To what extent are we achieving them?Palliat Med9123137Google Scholar
  2. Vachon, ML, Kristjanson, L, Higginson, I 1995Psychosocial issues in palliative care: The patient, the family, and the process and outcome of care.J Pain Symptom Manage10142150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Higginson, I 1993Clinical Audit in Palliative Care.Radcliffe Medical PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  4. Corner, J 1996Is there a research paradigm for palliative care?Palliat Med10201208Google Scholar
  5. Bruera E. Patient assessment in palliative cancer care. Cancer Treatment Rev 1996; 3–12.Google Scholar
  6. Hearn, J, Higginson, IJ 1997Outcome measures in palliative care for advanced cancer patients: A review.J Public Health Med19193199Google Scholar
  7. Alexander DA. Psychosocial research in palliative care. In: Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, Oxford: Oxford Medical Publ, 1998: 187–192.Google Scholar
  8. Cella, DF, Tulsky, DS, Gray, G,  et al. 1993The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: Development and validation of the general measure.J Clin Oncol11570579PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, S, Bergman, B,  et al. 1993The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.J Natl Cancer Inst85365376CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Clinch JJ, Dudgeon D, Schipper H. Quality of life assessment in palliative care. In: Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, Oxford: Oxford Medical Publ, 1998: 83–94.Google Scholar
  11. Fayers, PM, Aaronson, NK, Bjordal, K, Groenvold, M, Curran, D, Bottomley, A 2001The EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual.European Organization for Research and Treatment of CancerBrusselsGoogle Scholar
  12. Stromgren, A.S., Groenvold , M., Pedersen, L., Olsen, A.K., Sjogren, P. 2002Symptomatology of cancer patients in palliative care: Content validation of self-assessment questionnaires against medical records Eur J Cancer38788794Google Scholar
  13. Mislevy, RJ 1992Linking Educational Assessments: Concepts, Issues, Methods, and Prospects.Educational Testing Service, Policy Information CenterPrinceton, NJGoogle Scholar
  14. Hambleton, R.K. 1989

    Principles and Selected Applications of Item Response Theory

    Linn , R.L. eds. Educational MeasurementMacmillan New York143200
    Google Scholar
  15. van der Linden, WJ, Hambleton, RK 1997Handbook of Modern Item Response Theory.SpringerBerlinGoogle Scholar
  16. Petersen, M.A., Groenvold, M., Bjorner, J.B. 2003Use of differential item functioning analysis to assess the equivalence of translations of a questionnaire.Qual Life Res12373385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Aaronson, N.K., Cull, A., Kaasa, S., Sprangers ,  M.A.G. 1996

    The european organization for research and treatment of cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology An Update

    Spilker, B. eds. Quality of Life and Pharmacoeconomics in Clinical TrialsLippincott-Raven PublishersPhiladelphia179188
    Google Scholar
  18. Groenvold, M., Bjorner, JB, Klee, MC, Kreiner, S 1995Test for item-bias in a quality of life measure.J Clin Epidemiol48805816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Muraki, E. 1997

    A generalized partial credit model

    van der Linden, WJHambleton, RK eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response TheorySpringerBerlin153164
    Google Scholar
  20. Samejima, F. 1997

    Graded response model

    van der Linden, WJHambleton, RK eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response TheorySpringerBerlin85100
    Google Scholar
  21. Maydeu-Olivares, A, Drasgow, F, Mead, AD. 1994Distinguishing among parametric item response models for polychotomous ordered dataAppl Psychol Meas18245256Google Scholar
  22. van Buuren, S, Hopman-Rock, M 2001Revision of the ICIDH Severity of Disabilities Scale by data linking and item response theory.Stat Med2010611076CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Masters, GN, Wright, BD. 1997

    The Partial Credit Model

    van der Linden, WJHambleton, RK eds. Handbook of Modern Item Response TheorySpringerBerlin101122
    Google Scholar
  24. Fischer, GH, Molenaar, IW 1995Rasch Models – Foundations, Recent Developments, and Applications.Springer-VerlagBerlinGoogle Scholar
  25. Andrich, D 1978A rating formulation for ordered response categories.Psychometrika43561573Google Scholar
  26. Muraki, E, Bock, RD 1996Parscale – IRT based Test Scoring and Item Analysis for Graded Open-ended Exercises and Performance Tasks.Scientific Software Inc.ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  27. Bock, RD, Aitkin, M 1981Marginal maximum likelihood estimation of item parameters: Application of an EM algorithm.Psychometrika46443459Google Scholar
  28. Bock, RD, Mislevy, RJ 1982Adaptive EAP estimation of ability in a microcomputer environment.Appl Psychol Meas6431444Google Scholar
  29. Muraki, E 1993Information functions of the generalized partial credit model.Appl Psychol Meas17351363Google Scholar
  30. Cohen, J 1968Weighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit.Psychol Bull70213220Google Scholar
  31. Holland, PW, Wainer, H 1993Differential Item Functioning.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Hillsdale, NJGoogle Scholar
  32. Karnofsky, DA, Abelmann, WH, Craver, LF 1948The use of nitrogen mustards in the palliative treatment of carcinomaCancerI634656Google Scholar
  33. Zubrod, CG, Schneiderman, M, Frei, E 1960Appraisal of methods for the study of chemotherapy of cancer in man: Comparative therapeutic trial of nitrogen mustard and triethylene thiophosphoramide.J Chronic Dis11733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Fisher, WP,Jr., Eubanks, RL, Marier, RL 1997Equating the MOS SF36 and the LSU HSI Physical Functioning Scales.J Outcome Meas1329362Google Scholar
  35. Spector, WD, Fleishman, JA 1998Combining activities of daily living with instrumental activities of daily living to measure functional disability.J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci53S46S57Google Scholar
  36. Badia, X, Prieto, L, Roset, M, Diez-Perez, A, Herdman, M 2002Development of a short osteoporosis quality of life questionnaire by equating items from two existing instruments.J Clin Epidemiol553240CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. McHorney, CA 2002Use of item response theory to link 3 modules of functional status items from the Asset and Health Dynamics Among the Oldest Old study.Arch Phys Med Rehabil83383394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Orlando, M, Sherbourne, CD, Thissen, D 2000Summed-score linking using item response theory: Application to depression measurement.Psychol Assess12354359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Chang, C-H, Cella, D 1997Equating health-related quality of life instruments in applied oncology settings.Phys Med Rehabil State Art Rev11397406Google Scholar
  40. Leon, AC, Marzuk, PM, Portera, L 1995More reliable outcome measures can reduce sample size requirements.Arch Gen Psychiatry52867871Google Scholar
  41. Nunnally, JC, Bernstein, IH 1994Psychometric Theory.McGraw-Hill, Inc.New YorkGoogle Scholar
  42. Steyerberg, EW, Harrell, FE,Jr., Borsboom, GJ, Eijkemans, MJ, Vergouwe, Y, Habbema, JD 2001Internal validation of predictive models: Efficiency of some procedures for logistic regression analysis.J Clin Epidemiol54774781CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • J.B. Bjorner
    • 1
    • 2
    • 14
  • M.Aa. Petersen
    • 3
  • M. Groenvold
    • 3
    • 4
  • N. Aaronson
    • 5
  • M. Ahlner-elmqvist
    • 6
  • J.I. Arraras
    • 7
  • A. Brédart
    • 8
  • P. Fayers
    • 9
    • 10
  • M. Jordhoy
    • 10
  • M. Sprangers
    • 11
  • M. Watson
    • 12
  • T. Young
    • 13
  1. 1.Quality Metric IncorporatedLincolnUSA
  2. 2.National Institute of Occupational HealthCopenhagenDenmark
  3. 3.Department of Palliative Medicine Bispebjerg HospitalCopenhagen
  4. 4.Department of Health services Research, Institute of Public HealthUniversity of Copenhagen Denmark
  5. 5.The Netherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdam The Netherlands
  6. 6.ENT DepartmentMalmo University Hospital MASMalmoSweden
  7. 7.Department of OncologyHospital of NavarrePamplonaSpain
  8. 8.Institut Curie, Psychiatry and Psycho-Oncology UnitParisFrance
  9. 9.Department of Public HealthAberdeen University Medical SchoolAberdeenUK
  10. 10.Unit of Applied Clinical ResearchThe Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway
  11. 11.Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical CenterUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  12. 12.Psychological Medicine Royal Marsden NHS Trust Sutton
  13. 13.Lynda Jackson Macmillan CentreMount Vernon HospitalMiddlesexUK
  14. 14.Quality Metric IncorporatedLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations