Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 8, pp 1999–2013 | Cite as

Conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30

  • Chi-Cheng Huang
  • Shih-Hsin Tu
  • Heng-Hui Lien
  • Ching-Shui Huang
  • Pa-Chun Wang
  • Wei-Chu ChieEmail author
Article

Abstract

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the conceptual structure of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) by analyzing data collected from patients with major cancers in Taiwan. The conceptual structure underlying QLQ-C30, including higher-order factors, was explored by structural equation modeling (SEM).

Methods

The Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 was used as the measuring instrument. Higher-order models, including mental health/physical health, mental function/physical burden, symptom burden/function, single latent health-related quality of life, formative symptom burden/function, and formative health-related quality of life, were tested.

Results

Study subjects included 283 patients with breast, lung, and nasopharyngeal cancers. The original QLQ-C30 multi-factorial structure demonstrated poor composite reliability of the cognitive function subscale. The formative symptom/burden model was favored by model fit indices, further supporting causal–indicator duality, but was compromised by unexpected associations between symptomatic subscales and latent factors. The formative health-related quality of life was proposed with a single second-order latent factor where symptomatic subscales remained formative. Two additional symptom measures from the formal cognitive function subscale with the formative health-related quality-of-life model were proposed as the alterative conceptual structure for the Taiwan Chinese QLQ-C30.

Conclusions

Results of the current study represent the complete SEM approach for the EORTC QLQ-C30. The formative health-related quality-of-life model with elimination of cognitive function enhances the conceptual structure of the Taiwan Chinese version with parsimonious fit and interpretability.

Keywords

Quality of life EORTC QLQ-C30 Taiwan Chinese Cancer Conceptual structure Higher-order factor 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work was supported in part by Cathay Medical Research Institute grant MR10208 and National Science Council grant NSC-102-2314-B-281-003-MY3 and MOST-103-2314-B-281-004-MY2.

Conflict of interest

All authors declared no competing interests.

Supplementary material

11136_2014_913_MOESM1_ESM.xlsx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLSX 27 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Lipscomb, J., Snyder, C. F., & Gotay, C. C. (2007). Cancer outcomes measurement: Through the lens of the medical outcomes trust framework. Quality of Life Research, 16, 143–164.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Robling, M., Matthews, S. J., Hood, K., Russell, I. T., Holloway, R., Wilkinson, C., et al. (2002). The development of a new site-specific measure of quality of life for breast problems: The Cardiff breast scales. Quality of Life Research, 11, 339–348.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kaptein, A. A., Morita, S., & Sakamoto, J. (2005). Quality of life in gastric cancer. World Journal of Gastroenterology, 11, 3189–3196.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bergman, B., Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Kaasa, S., & Sullivan, M. (1994). The EORTC QLQ-LC13: A modular supplement to the EORTC core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) for use in lung cancer clinical trials. European Journal of Cancer, 30A, 635–642.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Arraras, J. I., Franklin, J., te Velde, A., Muller, M., et al. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire Module first results from a three-country field study. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 14, 2756–2768.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjordal, K., Hammerlid, E., Ahlner-Elmqvist, M., de Graeff, A., Boysen, M., Evensen, J. F., et al. (1999). Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients: Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-H&N35. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 1008–1019.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chie, W. C., Chang, K. J., Huang, C. S., & Kuo, W. H. (2003). Quality of life of breast cancer patients in Taiwan: Validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC BR-23. Psychooncology, 12, 729–735.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chie, W. C., Hong, R. L., Lai, C. C., Ting, L. L., & Hsu, M. M. (2003). Quality of life in patients of nasopharyngeal carcinoma: Validation of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-H&N35. Quality of Life Research, 12, 93–98.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chie, W. C., Yang, C. H., Hsu, C., & Yang, P. C. (2004). Quality of life of lung cancer patients: Validation of Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13. Quality of Life Research, 13, 257–262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Sung, Y. C., Liu, H. T., & Chie, W. C. (2007). Quality of life of patients with gastric cancer in Taiwan: Validation and clinical application of the Taiwan Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and EORTC QLQ-STO22. Psychooncology, 16, 945–949.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fayers, P. M., Hand, D. J., Bjordal, K., & Groenvold, M. (1997). Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 6, 393–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Boehmer, S., & Luszczynska, A. (2006). Two kinds of items in quality of life instruments: ‘Indicator and causal variables’ in the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 15, 131–141.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fayer, P., & Machin, D. (2007). Quality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6, 139–150.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gundy, C. M., Fayers, P. M., Groenvold, M., Petersen, M. A., Scott, N. W., Sprangers, M. A., et al. (2012). Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 21, 1607–1617.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Tu, S. H., Huang, C. S., Jeng, J. Y., Chao, H. L., et al. (2010). Quality of life in Taiwanese breast cancer survivors with breast-conserving therapy. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, 109, 493–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal consistency of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hays, R. D., & Hayasi, T. (1990). Beyond internal consistency reliability: Rationale and user’s guide for multitrait analysis program on the microcomputer. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 22, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Howard, K. I., & Forehand, G. G. (1962). A method for correcting item total correlations for the effect of relevant item inclusion. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 22, 731–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hayduk, L. A. (1987). Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and Advances. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1989). The degree of intention formation as a moderator of the attitude-behavior relationship. Social Psychology Quarterly, 52, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jarvenpaa, S. L., Tractinsky, N., & Vitale, M. (2000). Consumer trust in an internet store. Information Technology and Management, 1, 45–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1998). Multivariate data analysis (5th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18, 39–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Netemeyer, R. G., Johnston, M. W., & Burton, S. (1990). Analysis of role conflict and role ambiguity in a structural equation framework. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 148–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hair, J. F., William, C. B., Barry, J. B., & Rolph, E. A. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    MacCallum, R., Browne, M., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 2, 130–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ware, J. E., & Sherbourne, C. D. (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). I: Conceptual framework and item selection. Medical Care, 30, 473–483.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yun, Y. H., Park, Y. S., Lee, E. S., Bang, S. M., Heo, D. S., Park, S. Y., et al. (2004). Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 13, 863–868.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Luo, N., Fones, C. S., Lim, S. E., Xie, F., Thumboo, J., & Li, S. C. (2005). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Validation of English version in Singapore. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1181–1186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kobayashi, K., Takeda, F., Teramukai, S., Gotoh, I., Sakai, H., Yoneda, S., et al. (1998). A cross-validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) for Japanese with lung cancer. European Journal of Cancer, 34, 810–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hong, Z., & Katsuya, K. (2004). Testing psychometric properties of the standard Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). Journal of Epidemiology, 14, 193–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Montazeri, A., Harirchi, I., Vahdani, M., Khaleghi, F., Jarvandi, S., Ebrahimi, M., & Haji-Mahmoodi, M. (1999). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Supportive Care in Cancer, 7, 400–406.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Silpakit, C., Sirilerttrakul, S., Jirajarus, M., Sirisinha, T., Sirachainan, E., & Ratanatharathorn, V. (2006). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): Validation study of the Thai version. Quality of Life Research, 15, 167–172.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Chaukar, D. A., Das, A. K., Deshpande, M. S., Pai, P. S., Pathak, K. A., Chaturvedi, P., et al. (2005). Quality of life of head and neck cancer patient: Validation of the European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-C30 and European organization for research and treatment of cancer QLQ-H&N 35 in Indian patients. Indian Journal of Cancer, 42, 178–184.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E, Jr, Bentler, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Use of structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the SF-36 Health Survey in ten countries: Results from the IQOLA Project. International Quality of Life Assessment. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 1179–1188.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Anagnostopoulos, F., Niakas, D., & Pappa, E. (2005). Construct validation of the Greek SF-36 health survey. Quality of Life Research, 14, 1959–1965.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ringdal, G. I., & Ringdal, K. (1993). Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Quality of Life Research, 2, 129–140.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Huang, C. C., Lien, H. H., Wang, P. C., Yang, J. C., Cheng, C. Y., & Huang, C. S. (2007). Quality of life in disease-free adenocarcinoma survivors: Impacts of clinical stages and reconstructive surgical procedures. Digestive Surgery, 24, 59–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Smith, A. B., Cocks, K., Taylor, M., & Parry, D. (2014). Most domains of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 are reliable. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 952–957.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2006). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bentler, P. M., & Yuan, K. H. (1999). Structural equation modeling with small samples: Test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chi-Cheng Huang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Shih-Hsin Tu
    • 3
    • 4
  • Heng-Hui Lien
    • 2
    • 4
  • Ching-Shui Huang
    • 3
    • 4
  • Pa-Chun Wang
    • 5
  • Wei-Chu Chie
    • 6
    Email author
  1. 1.Cathay General Hospital SiJhihNew Taipei CityTaiwan
  2. 2.School of MedicineFu-Jen Catholic UniversityNew Taipei CityTaiwan
  3. 3.School of MedicineTaipei Medical UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan
  4. 4.Department of SurgeryCathay General HospitalTaipei CityTaiwan
  5. 5.Quality Management CenterCathay General HospitalTaipei CityTaiwan
  6. 6.Institute of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, College of Public HealthNational Taiwan UniversityTaipei CityTaiwan

Personalised recommendations