Quality of Life Research

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 1225–1233 | Cite as

Validation of the cancer needs questionnaire (CNQ) short-form version in an ambulatory cancer setting

  • T. Cossich
  • P. Schofield
  • S.A. McLachlan
Article

Abstract

The short-form Cancer Needs Questionnaire (CNQ) is a self-administered cancer-specific questionnaire designed to assess patients' needs across several domains. The purpose of this study is to further evaluate its internal consistency and construct validity, in a group of ambulatory patients with cancer. Four hundred and fifty patients with a variety of cancer types participated. Factor analysis reproduced five domains: psychological; health information; physical and daily living; patient care and support; and interpersonal communication needs. Cronbach's α coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 0.77, indicating substantial consistency across items grouped in the five domains. A priori predictions regarding convergent and contrasting groups construct validity were explored using bivariate relationships between domains of the short-form CNQ, the EORTC QLQC-30 and Beck Depression Inventory (short-form), with support provided for most of the predictions. The current study provides supportive evidence that the short-form CNQ is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing the needs of patients with cancer in an ambulatory care setting.

Cancer Instrument validation Patient needs Quality of life Questionnaires 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australia's health 2000: The seventh biennial health report of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sprangers MAG, Aaronson NK. The role of health care providers and significant others in evaluating the quality of life of patients with chronic disease: A review. J Clin Epidemiol 1992; 45: 743–760.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Christ G, Siegel K. Monitoring quality-of-life needs of cancer patients. Cancer 1990; 65: 760–765.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lattimore-Foot GG. Needs assessment in tertiary and secondary oncology practice: A conceptual and methodological exposition. Newcastle: University of Newcastle, 1996.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Burton L, Cook P, Boyes A, Group TSCR. Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 2000; 88: 217–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Boyes A, Bonevski B, Burton L, Cook P, Group TSCR. The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 2000; 88: 226–237.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Girgis A, Boyes A, Sanson-Fisher R, Burrows S. Perceived needs of women diagnosed with breast cancer: Rural versus urban location. Aust NZJ Pub Health 2000; 24: 166–173.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newell S, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Bonaventura A. How well do medical oncologists' perceptions reflect their patients' reported physical and psychosocial problems? Cancer 1998; 83: 1640–1651.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Hersey P, Paul C, Foot G. Assessing the perceived needs of patients attending an outpatient melanoma clinic. J Psychosoc Oncol 1999; 17: 101–118.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    McLachlan S, Allenby A, Matthews J, et al. Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 2001; 19: 4117–4125.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Allenby A, Matthews J, Beresford J, McLachlan S. The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. Eur J Cancer Care 2002; 11: 245–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. for the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Study Group of Quality of Life. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQC30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Nat Cancer Inst, 1993; 85: 365–376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG. Psychometric properties of the Beck depression inventory: Twenty-five years of evaluation. Clin Psychol Rev 1988; 8: 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    McLachlan S, Devins GM, Goodwin PJ. Validation of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) as a measure of psychosocial function in breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Care 1998; 34: 510–517.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Osoba D, Zee B, Pater J, Warr D, Kaizer L, Latreille J. Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Qual Life Res 1994; 3.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beck AT, Rial WY, Rickels K. Short form of depression inventory: Cross-validation. Psychol Rep 1974; 34: 1184–1186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hays RC, Anderson R, Revicki D. Psychometric considerations in evaluating health-related quality of life measures. Qual Life Res 1993; 2: 441–449.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Murphy KR, Davidshofer CO. Psychological Testing. Principles and Applications. 3rd ed. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. 1994.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cohen J. A power primer. Psychol Bull 1992; 112: 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 3rd ed. Northridge: HarperCollins College Publishers 1996.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Luker KA, Beaver K, Leinster SJ, Owens RG, Degner LF, Sloan JA. The information needs of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. J Adv Nursing 1995; 22: 134–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ong LM, Visser MR, Lammes FB, vanDerVelden J, Kuenen BC, Dettaes JC. Effect of providing cancer patients with the audiotaped initial consultation on satisfaction, recall, and quality of life: A randomised, double-blind study. J Clin Oncol 2000; 18: 3052–3060.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bilodeau BA, Degner LF. Information needs, sources of information, and decisional roles in women with breast cancer. Oncol Nursing Forum 1996; 23: 691–696.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Butow PN, Maclean M, Dunn SM, Tattersall MH, Boyer MJ. The dynamics of change: Cancer patients' preferences for involvement and support. Ann Oncol 1997; 8: 857–863.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Foot G, Sanson-Fisher R. Measuring the unmet needs of people living with cancer. Cancer Forum 1995; 19: 131–135.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nunnally JC. Psychometric Theory. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill 1978.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • T. Cossich
    • 1
  • P. Schofield
    • 1
  • S.A. McLachlan
    • 2
  1. 1.Peter MacCallum Cancer InstituteEast MelbourneAustralia
  2. 2.Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute and St. Vincent's HospitalFitzroyAustralia

Personalised recommendations