Quality of Life Research

, Volume 9, Issue 2, pp 129–137 | Cite as

Translation and validation of the Standard Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30

  • Hong Zhao
  • Katsuya Kanda


The majority of quality of life (QOL) questionnaires have been developed and used in English-speaking or Western European countries. The aims of this study were to provide the Standard Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30 version 2.0), and evaluate its psychometric properties. The translation process included independent translation, back translation, a pilot test with gynecological cancer patients, and a review and approval by the original developers. Participants in the major study included gestational trophoblastic disease patients (n = 68), ovarian cancer patients (n = 105), and other types of gynecological cancer patients (n = 18). The average completion time of the Standard Chinese version was 8.1 ± 2.9 min. All item-subscale correlation coefficients exceeded the criterion of item-convergent validity (r > 0.40) except item 1, 5, 20, and 25, and all items correlated significantly higher with their own subscale than with other subscales except item 1, 20, and 25. The correlation coefficients among all subscales were significant but modest (r = 0.40–0.70). Seven out of nine subscales met the minimal standards of reliability (Cronbach's α > 0.70). In conclusion, the Standard Chinese version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 is a valid instrument overall in assessing the QOL of Chinese gynecological cancer patients.

EORTC QLQ-C30 Gynecological cancer Psychometric property Quality of life Standard Chinese 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Cai RH, Zhu QS, Liu YQ, et al. Yearbook of Public Health in the People's Republic of China. People's Medical Pub-lishing House, Beijing, China, 1997: 426 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen H, Hu M, Xie F, et al. Test for the scale of quality of life for nasopharyngeal carcinoma (SQOL-NPC). J First Army Med Coll 1996; 16(1): 28-30 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen H, Hu M, Hong M. Studies on the scale for quality of life for patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Chin J Prev Med 1996; 30: 229-230 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Luo J, Sun Y, Zhao S. Development of quality of life questionnaire for Chinese cancer patients receiving chemobiotherapy. Chin J Oncol 1997; 19: 437-441 (in Chinese).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fayers P, Aaronson NK, Bjordal K, Sullivan M. EORTC QLQ-C30 Scoring Manual. EORTC Quality of Life Group, Brussels, Belgium, 1995.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ngan HYS, personal communication, 1998.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hays RD, Hayashi T, Carson S, et al. User's Guide for the Multitrait Analysis Program (MAP). Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif, 1988.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE Jr. The MOS short-form general health survey: Reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care 1988; 26: 724-735.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951; 16: 297.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The Euro-pean Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in interna-tional clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365-376.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaasa S, Bjordal K, Aaronson N, et al. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30): Validity and re-liability when analyzed with patients treated with palliative radiotherapy. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A(13/14): 2260-2263.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Osoba D, Aaronson N, Zee B, Sprangers M. te Velde A. Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Qual Life Res 1997; 6: 103-108.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ringdal GI, Ringdal K. Testing the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire on cancer patients with heterogeneous diagnoses. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 129-140.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, et al. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC Quality of Life Question-naire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res 1994; 3: 353-364.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) Annual Report on the Results of Treatment in Gynecological Cancer. 1985; 19: 280.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    The International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) cancer committee. Staging Announcement. West Berlin, German. September 1985. Gynecol Oncol1986; 25: 383.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2000

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hong Zhao
    • 1
  • Katsuya Kanda
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Nursing Administration, Graduate School of MedicineUniversity of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations