Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation of the FACT-G scale for evaluating quality of life in cancer patients in Colombia

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To validate the FACT-G scale for measuring quality of life of patients with cancer in Colombia.

Methods

The analysis included factor analysis, confirmatory analysis, Rasch analysis, convergent validity, internal consistency (473 patients diagnosed with cancer), test–retest reliability (97 patients evaluated at two different time points) and sensitivity to change (25 patients evaluated before and after an intervention).

Results

A four-factor structure has been found (“Physical well-being”, “Social–family well-being”, “Functional well-being” and “Emotional well-being”). Two subscales (“Emotional well-being” and “Social–family well-being”) have misfitting items. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 for the whole scale. None of the items had significant impact on the scale’s alpha when removed. Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient indicated test–retest reliability (rho c: 0.64–0.76) adequate to the uses of the tool. Regarding sensitivity to change, repeated measures analysis demonstrated significant change of the score after an intervention [F(3, 72) = 39.89, P = 0.000]. Except for the domain “Social–family well-being”, Pearson’s correlation coefficient between equivalent domain scores on FACT-G and the EORTC QLQC-30 ranged from 0.5 to 0.7.

Conclusions

The FACT-G scale measures a four-factor construct. Results indicate that the FACT-G scale is an instrument that performs consistently over time, with evidence of responsiveness. The finding of misfitting items in two subscales (“Social–family well-being”, and “Emotional well-being”) imposes caution in interpreting the scores of these domains.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Patrick, D. L., & Bergner, M. (1990). Measurement of health status in the 1990s. Annual Review of Public Health, 11, 165–183.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Leplege, A., & Hunt, S. (1997). The problem of quality of life in medicine. The Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(1), 47–50.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Cella, D. F., & Tulsky, D. S. (1993). Quality of life in cancer: Definition, purpose, and method of measurement. Cancer Investigation, 11(3), 327–336.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Testa, M. A., & Simonson, D. C. (1996). Assessment of quality-of-life outcomes. New England Journal of Medicine, 334(13), 835–840.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Frost, M. H., & Sloan, J. A. (2002). Quality of life measurements: A soft outcome—or is it? The American Journal of Managed Care, 8(18), S574–S579.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Bullinger, M. (1996). Assessment of health related quality of life with the SF-36 health survey. Rehabilitation (Stuttg), 35(3), 17–27. Quiz XXVII–XXIX.

    Google Scholar 

  7. 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(5), 365–376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Cella, D., & Nowinski, C. J. (2002). Measuring quality of life in chronic illness: The functional assessment of chronic illness therapy measurement system. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 83(12 Suppl 2), S10–S17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Cella, D., Hernandez, L., Bonomi, A. E., Corona, M., Vaquero, M., Shiomoto, G., et al. (1998). Spanish language translation and initial validation of the functional assessment of cancer therapy quality-of-life instrument. Medical Care, 36(9), 1407–1418.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lee, E. H., Chun, M., Kang, S., & Lee, H. J. (2004). Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale for measuring the health-related quality of life in Korean women with breast cancer. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(7), 393–399.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Conroy, T., Mercier, M., Bonneterre, J., Luporsi, E., Lefebvre, J. L., Lapeyre, M., et al. (2004). French version of FACT-G: Validation and comparison with other cancer-specific instruments. European Journal of Cancer, 40(15), 2243–2252.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Costet, N., Lapierre, V., Benhamou, E., & Le Gales, C. (2005). Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy General (FACT-G) in French cancer patients. Quality of Life Research, 14(5), 1427–1432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas, B. C., Pandey, M., Ramdas, K., Sebastian, P., & Nair, M. K. (2004). FACT-G: Reliability and validity of the Malayalam translation. Quality of Life Research, 13(1), 263–269.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Fumimoto, H., Kobayashi, K., Chang, C. H., Eremenco, S., Fujiki, Y., Uemura, S., et al. (2001). Cross-cultural validation of an international questionnaire, the general measure of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale (FACT-G), for Japanese. Quality of Life Research, 10(8), 701–709.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Holzner, B., Bode, R. K., Hahn, E. A., Cella, D., Kopp, M., Sperner-Unterweger, B., et al. (2006). Equating EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G scores and its use in oncological research. European Journal of Cancer, 42(18), 3169–3177.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonomi, A. E., Cella, D. F., Hahn, E. A., Bjordal, K., Sperner-Unterweger, B., Gangeri, L., et al. (1996). Multilingual translation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) quality of life measurement system. Quality of Life Research, 5(3), 309–320.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bravo, M., Canino, G. J., Rubio-Stipec, M., & Woodbury-Farina, M. (1991). A cross-cultural adaptation of a psychiatric epidemiologic instrument: The diagnostic interview schedule’s adaptation in Puerto Rico. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 15(1), 1–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Dapueto, J. J., Francolino, C., Gotta, I., Levin, R., Alonso, I., Barrios, E., et al. (2001). Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General questionnaire (FACT-G) in a South American Spanish speaking population. Psycho-oncology, 10(1), 88–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Smith, A. B., Wright, P., Selby, P. J., & Velikova, G. (2007). A Rasch and factor analysis of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G). Health Qual Life Outcomes, 5, 19.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dapueto, J. J., Francolino, C., Servente, L., Chang, C. H., Gotta, I., Levin, R., et al. (2003). Evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) Spanish Version 4 in South America: Classic psychometric and item response theory analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 1, 32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2007). LISREL 8.80. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software International.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Diamantopoulos, A., & Siguaw, J. A. (2000). Introducing Lisrel: A guide for the uninitiated. London: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Hu, L. T. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Linacre, J. M. (2002). Optimizing rating scale category effectiveness. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 85–106.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Wright, B., & Linacre, M. (1994). Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8(3), 370.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Linacre, J. M. (2005). User’s guide to winsteps. Chicago: Mesa Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lin, L., & Torbeck, L. D. (1998). Coefficient of accuracy and concordance correlation coefficient: New statistics for methods comparison. PDA Journal of Pharmaceutical Science and Technology, 52(2), 55–59.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Revelle, W., & Rocklin, T. (1979). Very simple structure: An alternative procedure for estimating the optimal number of interpretable factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 403–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Porter, L. S., Keefe, F. J., Garst, J., McBride, C. M., & Baucom, D. (2008). Self-efficacy for managing pain, symptoms, and function in patients with lung cancer and their informal caregivers: associations with symptoms and distress. Pain, 137(2), 306–315.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Pett, M. A., Lackey, N. R., & Sullivan, J. J. (2003). Making sense of factor analysis: The use of factor analysis for instrument development in health care research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Pub.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Wright, B., & Masters, G. N. (2002). Number of persons or item strata. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 16(3), 888.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wright, B. D. (1998). Interpreting reliabilities. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 11(4), 602.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Vega, W. A. (1990). Hispanic families in the 1980s: Adecade of research. Journal of marriage and the family, 52, 1015–1024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Florez, K. R., Aguirre, A. N., Viladrich, A., Cespedes, A., De La Cruz, A. A., & Abraido-Lanza, A. F. (2009). Fatalism or destiny? A qualitative study and interpretative framework on Dominican women’s breast cancer beliefs. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 11(4), 291–301.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Karabatsos, G. (2000). A critique of Rasch residual fit statistics. Journal of Applied Measurement, 1(2), 152–176.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad Nacional De Colombia, Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia

    Ricardo Sánchez

  2. Instituto Nacional de Cancerología, Bogotá, Colombia

    Monica Ballesteros

  3. Center on Outcomes, Research and Education, FACIT, Elmhurst, IL, USA

    Benjamin J. Arnold

Authors
  1. Ricardo Sánchez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Monica Ballesteros
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Benjamin J. Arnold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ricardo Sánchez.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sánchez, R., Ballesteros, M. & Arnold, B.J. Validation of the FACT-G scale for evaluating quality of life in cancer patients in Colombia. Qual Life Res 20, 19–29 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9727-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9727-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation