Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 1483–1490 | Cite as

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

  • Neil W. Scott
  • Josephine A. Etta
  • Neil K. Aaronson
  • Andrew Bottomley
  • Peter M. Fayers
  • Mogens Groenvold
  • Michael Koller
  • Dagmara Kuliś
  • Debbi Marais
  • Morten A. Petersen
  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
Article

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.

Keywords

EORTC QLQ-C30 Translations Quality of life 

References

  1. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rohrmann, B. (1978). Empirische Studien zur Entwicklung von Antwortskalen für die sozialwissenschaftliche Forschung. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 9, 222–245.Google Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spector, P. E. (1980). Ratings of equal and unequal response choice intervals. Journal of Social Psychology, 112, 115–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwarz, N. (1990). What respondents learn from scales: The informative functions of response alternatives. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 2, 274–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Neil W. Scott
    • 1
  • Josephine A. Etta
    • 2
  • Neil K. Aaronson
    • 3
  • Andrew Bottomley
    • 4
  • Peter M. Fayers
    • 1
    • 5
  • Mogens Groenvold
    • 6
    • 7
  • Michael Koller
    • 8
  • Dagmara Kuliś
    • 4
  • Debbi Marais
    • 9
  • Morten A. Petersen
    • 6
  • Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
    • 10
  1. 1.Medical Statistics Team, Division of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  2. 2.Division of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  3. 3.Division of Psychosocial Research and EpidemiologyNetherlands Cancer InstituteAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Quality of Life DepartmentEuropean Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer HeadquartersBrusselsBelgium
  5. 5.Department of Cancer Research and Molecular Medicine, Faculty of MedicineNorwegian University of Science and TechnologyTrondheimNorway
  6. 6.Department of Palliative MedicineBispebjerg HospitalCopenhagenDenmark
  7. 7.Institute of Public HealthUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark
  8. 8.Centre for Clinical StudiesUniversity Hospital RegensburgRegensburgGermany
  9. 9.Public Health Nutrition, Division of Applied Health SciencesUniversity of AberdeenAberdeenUK
  10. 10.Department of Medical Psychology, Academic Medical CentreUniversity of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations