A cross-cultural validation of patient-reported outcomes measures: a study of breast cancers survivors
- 421 Downloads
Psychometric inadequacy interferes with the assessment of patient-reported health outcomes. This study examined the psychometric properties of several standardized measures in health research.
Participants completed health outcomes measures including the FACT-G, SF-36, MOS Social Support Survey, and CES-D. Psychometric properties examined include reliability, and construct and concurrent validity.
320 BCS including 88 African-, 95 English-proficient Latina-, and 137 Limited English-proficient Latina-Americans participated. The findings demonstrate acceptable reliability (α > 0.70) and consistent factor structures for most measures with the variance ranging from 56 to 84%. The FACT-G physical well-being and SF-36 role limitations subscales had the best fitting structures. Concurrent validity showed the FACT-G subscales correlated with their appropriate counterparts.
Despite being commonly used instruments in HRQOL (e.g., FACT-G, SF-36) and QOL (e.g., CES-D, MOS) research, few studies reported the psychometric properties of these and when applied cross-culturally. However, evaluating the psychometric properties of measures in health outcomes research should be done routinely.
KeywordsMeasurement Reliability Validity Breast cancer survivors Ethnic minority Linguistic minority
- 1.American Cancer Society. (2011). Cancer facts & figures 2011. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
- 2.American Cancer Society. (2011). Cancer facts & figures for African-Americans 2011–2012. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
- 3.American Cancer Society. (2009). Cancer facts & figures for hispanics/latinos 2009–2011. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.Google Scholar
- 5.Institute of Medicine. (2006). From cancer patient to cancer survivor: Lost in transition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
- 16.Ware, J. E., et al. (1993). SF-36 health survey: I. Manual and interpretation guide. Boston: Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
- 20.Stewart, A. L. & Napoles-Springer, A. (2000). Health-related quality of life assessments in diverse population groups in the United States. Medical Care 38(9), II-102–II-124.Google Scholar
- 30.Dapueto, J. J., 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 and Quality of Life Outcomes 1(32), p. Article available online from http://www.hqlo.com/content/1/1/32.
- 32.Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
- 33.SPPS. (2006). SPSS 15.0 command syntax reference 2006. Chicago, IL: SPSS, Inc.Google Scholar
- 39.Haase, J. E., & Braden, C. J. (2012). Conceptualization and measurement of quality of life and related concepts: Progress to date on guidelines for clarity. In C. R. King & P. S. Hinds (Eds.), Quality of life: From nursing and patient perspectives (pp. 59–81). Sudbury, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.Google Scholar
- 43.Ganz, P. A., Guadagnoli, E., Landrum, M. B., Lash, T. L., Rakowski, W., Silliman, R. A. (2003). Breast cancer in older women: Quality of life and psychosocial adjustment in the 15 months after diagnosis. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 4027–4033.Google Scholar