Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

An evaluation of the response category translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire

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

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to evaluate the translated response categories used in eight translations of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 questionnaire, which is used in many international clinical trials. Twenty-eight of the 30 items in the questionnaire have the same four response categories: “Not at all”, “A little”, “Quite a bit” and “Very Much”.

Methods

People with knowledge of both English and one of eight European languages were asked to complete an Internet survey. The strength (intensity) of the translated categories was assessed using two separate approaches: one using a verbal response scale and the other a visual analogue scale (VAS).

Results

Two hundred and seventy-nine people participated in the survey. Most translations were rated similarly to English. The largest differences were for the German translation of “Quite a bit”, which was rated 16.3 points lower than the corresponding English category on a 0–100 VAS.

Conclusions

Most of the translated categories were found to be similar to the English versions and should continue to be used. We recommend that three translated categories should be considered for revision. Similar surveys could be used to assess the categories used in other translated quality of life instruments.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. 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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Aaronson, N. K., Cull, A. M., Kaasa, S., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: An update. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 179–189). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fayers, P., Bottomley, A., & EORTC Quality of Life Group, and EORTC Quality of Life Unit. (2002). Quality of life research within the EORTC-the EORTC QLQ-C30. European Journal of Cancer, 38, S125–S133.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Garratt, A., Schmidt, L., Mackintosh, A., & Fitzpatrick, R. (2002). Quality of life measurement: Bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ, 324, 1417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fayers, P., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., & Bottomley, A. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Cull, A., Sprangers, M., Bjordal, K., Aaronson, N., West, K., & Bottomley, A. (2002). EORTC Quality of Life Group translation procedure. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Koller, M., Aaronson, N. K., Blazeby, J., Bottomley, A., Dewolf, L., Fayers, P., et al. (2007). Translation procedures for standardised quality of life questionnaires: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) approach. European Journal of Cancer, 43(12), 1810–1820.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kulis, D., Arnott, M., Greimel, E. R., Bottomley, A., & Koller, M. (2011). Trends in translation requests and arising issues regarding cultural adaptation. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11, 307–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Wild, D., Grove, A., Martin, M., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translating adaptation. Value Health, 2, 94–104.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N. K., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 using differential item functioning analyses. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1103–1115.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16, 115–129.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2010). Interpretation of differential item functioning (DIF) analyses using external review. Expert Reviews in Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, 10, 253–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Keller, S. D., Ware, J. E., Jr, Gandek, B., Aaronson, N. K., Alonso, J., Apolone, G., et al. (1998). Testing the equivalence of translations of widely used response choice labels: Results from the IQOLA project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51, 933–944.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Skevington, S. M., & Tucker, C. (1999). Designing response scales for cross-cultural use in health care: Data from the development of the UK WHOQOL. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 72, 51–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2009). Differential item functioning (DIF) in the EORTC QLQ-C30: A comparison of baseline, on-treatment and off-treatment data. Quality of Life Research, 18, 381–388.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Rohrmann, B. (1978). Empirische Studien zur Entwicklung von Antwortskalen für die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 9, 222–245.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Finn, R. H. (1972). Effects of some variations in rating scale characteristics on the means and reliabilities of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 32, 255–265.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Spector, P. E. (1980). Ratings of equal and unequal response choice intervals. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 115–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Schwarz, N. (1990). What respondents learn from scales: The informative functions of response alternatives. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 274–285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M. et al. on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. (2008). Reference values manual. Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Medical Statistics Team, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Building, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD, UK

    Neil W. Scott & Peter M. Fayers

  2. Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Josephine A. Etta

  3. Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Neil K. Aaronson

  4. Quality of Life Department, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Headquarters, Brussels, Belgium

    Andrew Bottomley & Dagmara Kuliś

  5. Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

    Peter M. Fayers

  6. Department of Palliative Medicine, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Mogens Groenvold & Morten A. Petersen

  7. Institute of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark

    Mogens Groenvold

  8. Centre for Clinical Studies, University Hospital Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany

    Michael Koller

  9. Public Health Nutrition, Division of Applied Health Sciences, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

    Debbi Marais

  10. Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical Centre, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Mirjam A. G. Sprangers

Authors
  1. Neil W. Scott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Josephine A. Etta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Neil K. Aaronson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrew Bottomley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Peter M. Fayers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Mogens Groenvold
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Koller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Dagmara Kuliś
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Debbi Marais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Morten A. Petersen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Neil W. Scott.

Additional information

This study is conducted on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Scott, N.W., Etta, J.A., Aaronson, N.K. et al. An evaluation of the response category translations of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. Qual Life Res 22, 1483–1490 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0276-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-012-0276-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation