Catchlove BR Measuring the quality life cancer patients a concise QL index use physicians Journal Chronic Diseases
| Measure | Purpose | Domains | Scale | Time frame |
No. of items |
Administered by and (completion time) |
Reliability | Validity |
|
| 1 |
Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) [1] |
Designed to measure Depression |
One domain: |
Inventory produces a total score and is scaled on a four point Likert scale |
Past two weeks |
21 |
Self-administered (5 minutes) |
Reliabilities ranged from .48 to .86 |
Correlation coefficients between the BDI and clinical ratings yield correlations from .55 to .96 [2] |
| 2 |
Breast Cancer Chemotherapy Questionnaire (BCQ) [3] |
Developed to measure outcomes of women with stage II breast cancer receiving adjuvant chemotherapy |
Seven domains: Consequences of hair loss; emotional dysfunction; physical symptoms; trouble and inconvenience associated with treatment; fatigue; nausea; positive well-being |
Seven point Likert scale ranging in responses |
Past two weeks |
30 |
Interviewer- administered (10-15 minutes) |
Internal consistency ranging from .89 to .91 |
Correlation coefficients between BCQ and Spitzer QL-Index was .62 |
| 3 |
Breast Cancer Prevention Trial Symptom Checklist (BCPT) [4, 5] |
Designed to examine the physical and psychological symptoms associated with menopause and Tamoxifen usage |
Eight domains: Hot flashes; nausea; bladder control; vaginal problems; musculoskeletal pain; cognitive problems; weight problems; arm problems |
Five point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Extremely) |
Past four weeks |
43 |
Self-report (estimated 30 minutes) |
Reliability was .81 |
Correlation coefficients between BCPT and SF-36 were -.40 and -.36 |
| 4 |
Cancer Needs Questionnaire – Short Form (CNQ-SF) [6] |
Developed to assess cancer patients’ needs |
Five domains: Psychological; health information; physical and daily living; patient care and support; interpersonal communication |
Five point Likert scale ranging from 1 (No need/not applicable) to 5 (High need for help) |
Unspecified |
32 |
Self-administered (estimated 15-20 minutes) |
Reliability ranged from .77 to .94 |
Correlation coefficients between CNQ-SF and EORTC QLQ-C30 and BDI ranged from .23 to .58 [7] |
| 5 |
Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES-SF) [8] |
Developed to assess patients’ cancer-related problems |
Six domains: Physical; psychosocial; Medical interaction; marital; sexual; global |
Five point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much) |
Past month |
59 |
Self-administered (average 20 minutes; Range of 10-34 minutes) |
Reliabilities ranged from .39 to .82 |
Correlation coefficients between the CARES-SF and the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) ranged between .53 to .73 [9] |
| 6 |
Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-10 (CES-D) |
Designed to measure Depression |
One domain: |
Four point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Rarely) to 3 (Most of the time) and summed across the ten items to provide a total score. |
Past week |
10 |
Self-administered (estimated 5 minutes) |
Reliability of .92[10]; Reliability for CES-D 20 item scale is .86 [11] |
Correctly identifies 98% of depressed patients as having major Depression [10] |
| 7 |
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Breast Cancer Specific Version (EORTC QLQ-BR23) [12] |
Designed to measure QOL in the breast cancer population at various stages and with patients with differing modalities |
Five domains: Therapy side effects; arm symptoms; breast symptoms; body image; sexual functioning |
Four point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much) |
Past week |
23 |
Self-report (10 minutes) |
Reliabilities ranged from .70 to .91 |
Discriminant validity of mutually exclusive groups based on their initial performance status scores produced medium to large effect sizes ranging from .43 to 1.1 |
| 8 |
European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL Cancer Specific Version (EORTC QLQ-C30) [13] |
Cancer specific questionnaire designed to measure QOL in the cancer population |
Nine domains: Physical; role, cognitive; emotional; social; fatigue; pain; nausea and vomiting; global health status and quality of life |
Four point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much); 1 (Very poor) to 7 (Excellent) |
Past week |
30 |
Self-administered (Under 10 minutes) |
Reliabilities ranged from .69 to .90.[14] Test-retest reliabilities ranged from .63 to .87 [15] |
Correlation coefficient between the QLQ-C30 and the Profile of Mood States (POMS) was .56 [16]44]. |
| 9 |
Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) [17] |
Designed to measure a variety of symptoms |
Nine domains: Pain; tiredness; nausea; Depression; anxiety; drowsiness; appetite; well-being; shortness of breath |
Scaled using a visual analog scale |
At the time of assessment |
9 |
Self-administered (estimated 5 minutes) |
Internal consistency reliability of .39 to .86 |
Correlation coefficient between the ESAS and the FACT was .85 [18] |
| 10 |
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Breast Symptom Index (FACT-B) [19] |
Specific to breast cancer patients |
Six domains: Physical well-being; social/family well-being; emotional well-being; functional well-being; relationship with doctor; additional concerns |
Five point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much) |
Past week |
37 |
Self-report or interviewer- administered (estimated 25 minutes) |
Internal consistency was .90 |
Spearman correlations between FBSI and FACT ranged from .34 to .84 |
| 11 |
Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Endocrine System (FACT-ES) [20] |
Focus on endocrine concerns experienced during breast cancer treatment |
One domain: Endocrine concerns |
Five point Likert scale ranging from 0 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much) and comprises a total score |
Past week |
18 |
Self-report or interviewer-administered (estimated 10 minutes) |
Internal consistency was .79 Test-retest reliability was .93 |
Discriminant validity of known groups comparing adjuvant chemotherapy and those without any endocrine therapy produced a significant t score with the adjuvant chemotherapy group experiencing more endocrine symptoms than the non-endocrine therapy group |
| 12 |
Functional Living Index – Cancer (FLIC) [21] |
Designed to assess the effect that cancer treatment and symptoms have on functional ability in all areas of life |
Five domains: Physical functioning; mental functioning; social functioning; general health/well-being; gastrointestinal symptoms |
Seven point Likert-type linear analog scale. Patients are instructed to answer the questions by placing a vertical line at the point in the scale that best represents their response based on various Likert points along the scale |
Past two weeks; Past month; Today |
22 |
Self-administered (Under 10 minutes) |
Reliability ranged from .64 to .87.[21] |
Correlation coefficients between FLIC and SF-36 ranged from .50 to .62 [22] |
| 13 |
Geriatric Depression Scale – Short Form (GDS-SF) [23] |
Designed to assess depression in the elderly |
Four domains: Positive mood; sad mood; boredom, memory problems, and energy level; staying home |
Scaled in a yes/no format |
Past week |
15 |
Self-administered (estimated 5 minutes) |
Internal consistency ranged from .60 to .77 [24] |
Cut off score of greater than or equal to 7 in correctly diagnosing depression 79% of the time [25] |
| 14 |
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) [26] |
Developed to measure anxiety and depression |
Two domains: Anxiety and depression |
Four point Likert scale |
Past week |
14 |
Self-administered (estimated 5-10 minutes) |
Reliabilities of .98 for total score, .85 for anxiety subscale, and .80 for depression subscale. Test-retest reliability has produced coefficients over a two month period for the total score, anxiety subscale, and depression subscale (.79, .79, and .63 respectively).[27] |
Correlation coefficients between the HADS and Symptom Checklist 90 scale were .73 (anxiety subscale) and .67 (depression subscale [28]). |
| 15 |
Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LSQ) [14] |
Developed to measure one’s general sense of satisfaction with life as it relates to school, relationships, leisure time, religious practices, and overall health, specifically for women with breast cancer |
Six domains: Quality of family relation; physical symptoms; socioeconomic situation; quality of daily activities; sickness impact; and quality of close friend relation |
Seven point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very much) to 7 (Not at all) |
Past week |
32 |
Self-report (estimated 20 minutes) |
Reliabilities ranged from .62 to .92 |
Correlation coefficients between LSQ and EORTC QLQ-C30 were -.68 to .54 |
| 16 |
Medical Outcome Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) [29] |
Developed to assess health-related QOL |
Eight domains: Physical functioning; role limitations due to physical health; role limitations due to emotional problems; energy/fatigue; emotional well-being; social functioning; bodily pain; general health |
Scaled using various scales |
Unspecified |
36 |
Self-administered (5 minutes) |
Reliability ranged from .74 to .98 [30] |
Correlation coefficients between the SF-36 and the General health Questionnaire (GHQ-29) were -.35 to =.61 (correlations are negative because the two scales run in opposite directions) [31] |
| 17 |
Quality of Life Index (QL-Index) [32] |
Designed to assess health outcomes of those with cancer and other chronic diseases |
Five domains: Activity; daily living; health; support; outlook |
Three point Likert Scale |
Past two weeks |
5 |
Interviewer-administered or self-administered (Under 10 minutes) |
Internal consistency of .78 |
Correlation coefficients ranged from .40 to .63 .[32] |
| 18 |
Rotterdam Symptoms Checklist – Modified [33] |
Developed to assess symptom-related distress among cancer patients |
Two domains: Physical distress and miscellaneous variables |
Four point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Not at all) to 4 (Very much) |
Past week |
28 |
Self-administered (8 minutes) |
Reliability of .88 |
Correlation coefficients ranged from -.59 to -.61 when the Rotterdam Symptoms Checklist-Modified was compared with the SF-36 (correlations are negative because the two scales run in opposite directions) [33] |
| 19 |
Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale for Breast Cancer (SLDS-BC) [34] |
Developed to measure satifaction with life among breast cancer patients |
Five domains: Social functioning; appearance; physical functioning; communication with Medical providers; spirituality |
Seven point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (A “delighted” face) to 7 (A “very unhappy” face |
Unspecified |
32 |
Self-report (estimated 20 minutes) |
Reliabilities ranged from .90 to .93 |
Correlation coefficient between SLDS-BC and FACT-B was .59 |
| 20 |
World Health Organization Quality of Life – Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF) [35] |
Designed to examine domain level profiles assessing quality of life |
Four domains: Physical health; psychological; social relationships; environment |
Five point Likert scale with varying anchors |
Past two weeks |
26 |
Self-administered (estimated 15-20 minutes) |
Reliability ranged from .66 to .84. Similar alphas have been shown for test-retest reliability ranging from .66 to .87 |
Correlation coefficients between the WHOQOL-BREF and SF-36 ranged from .36 to .78 [36] |
| 21 |
Zung self-rating depression scale [37] |
Designed to measure Depression |
Depression |
Four point Likert scale ranging from 1 (A little of the time) to 4 (Most of the time) |
Last 5 days |
20 |
Self-administered (estimated 10 minutes) |
Internal consistency of .58[38] |
Scale has produced good discriminant validity as it was found to be the primary discriminating variable in distinguishing depressed from nondepressed participants. [39] |
References:
1. Radloff L: The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general population. Applied Psychological Measurement 1977, 1:385-401.
2. Beck AT, Steer RA, Garbin MG: Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory: Twenty-five Years of Evaluation. Clinical Psychology Review 1988, 8:77-100.
3. Levine MN, Guyatt GH, Gent M, De Pauw S, Goodyear MD, Hryniuk WM, Arnold A, Findlay B, Skillings JR, Bramwell VH, et al.: Quality of life in stage II breast cancer: an instrument for clinical trials. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1988, 6:1798-1810.
4. Ganz PA, Day R, Ware JE, Jr., Redmond C, Fisher B: Base-line quality-of-life assessment in the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Breast Cancer Prevention Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995, 87:1372-1382.
5. Day R, Ganz PA, Costantino JP, Cronin WM, Wickerham DL, Fisher B: Health-related quality of life and tamoxifen in breast cancer prevention: a report from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1999, 17:2659-2669.
6. Lattimore-Foot GG: Needs assessment in tertiary and secondary oncology practice: a conceptual and methodological exposition. PhD thesis. University of Newcastle, Newcastle; 1996.
7. Cossich T, Schofield P, McLachlan SA: Validation of the cancer needs questionnaire (CNQ) short-form version in an ambulatory cancer setting. Qual Life Res 2004, 13:1225-1233.
8. Heinrich RL, Schag CC, Ganz PA: Living with cancer: the Cancer Inventory of Problem Situations. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1984, 40:972-980.
9. Turner J, Kelly B, Swanson C, Allison R, Wetzig N: Psychosocial impact of newly diagnosed advanced breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2005, 14:396-407.
10. Irwin M, Artin KH, Oxman MN: Screening for depression in the older adult: criterion validity of the 10-item Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D). Archives of Internal Medicine 1999, 159:1701-1704.
11. Kohout FJ, Berkman LF, Evans DA, Cornoni-Huntley J: Two shorter forms of the CES-D (Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression) depression symptoms index. Journal of Aging and Health 1993, 5:179-193.
12. Sprangers MAG, Groenvold M, Arraras JI, Franklin J, teVelde A, Muller M, Franzini L, Wiliams A, deHaes H, Hopwood P, et al: The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer breast cancer-specific quality-of-life questionnaire module: First results from a three-country field study. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1996, 14:2756-2768.
13. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, Filiberti A, Flechtner H, Fleishman SB, Dehaes J, et al: 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 1993, 85:365-376.
14. Carlsson M, Hamrin E: Measurement of quality of life in women with breast cancer. Development of a Life Satisfaction Questionnaire (LSQ-32) and a comparison with the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research 1996, 5:265-274.
15. Hjermstad MJ, Fossa SD, Bjordal K, Kaasa S: Test-Retest Study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1995, 13:1249-1254.
16. McLachlan SA, 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. European Journal of Cancer 1998, 34:510-517.
17. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, Selmser P, Macmillan K: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. Journal of Palliative Care 1991, 7:6-9.
18. Chang VT, Hwang SS, Feuerman M: Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale. Cancer 2000, 88:2164-2171.
19. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, Deasy S, Cobleigh M, Shiomoto G: Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. Journal of Clinical Oncology 1997, 15:974-986.
20. Fallowfield LJ, Leaity SK, Howell A, Benson S, Cella D: Assessment of quality of life in women undergoing hormonal therapy for breast cancer: validation of an endocrine symptom subscale for the FACT-B. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 1999, 55:189-199.
21. Morrow GR, Lindke J, Black P: Measurement of quality of life in patients: psychometric analyses of the Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC). Quality of Life Research 1992, 1:287-296.
22. Wilson RW, Hutson LM, Vanstry D: Comparison of 2 quality-of-life questionnaires in women treated for breast cancer: the RAND 36-Item Health Survey and the Functional Living Index-Cancer. Physical Therapy 2005, 85:851-860.
23. Sheikh J, Yesavage J: Geriatric Depression Scale: Recent evidence and development of a shorter version. Clinical Gerontologist 1986, 5:165-173.
24. Jang Y, Borenstein AR, Chiriboga DA, Mortimer JA: Depressive symptoms among African American and White older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series B-Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 2005, 60:P313-P319.
25. Lesher EL, Berryhill JS: Validation of the Geriatric Depression Scale--Short Form among inpatients. Journal of Clinical Psychology 1994, 50:256-260.
26. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 1983, 67:361-370.
27. Roberts SB, Bonnici DM, Mackinnon AJ, Worcester MC: Psychometric evaluation of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) among female cardiac patients. Br J Health Psychol 2001, 6:373-383.
28. Bjelland I, Dahl AA, Haug TT, Neckelmann D: The validity of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. An updated literature review. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 2002, 52:69-77.
29. Ware J, Snow K, Kosinski M: SF-36 Health Survey: Manual and Interpretation Guide. Lincoln, RI: Quality-Metric Incorporated; 1993.
30. Hays RD, Sherbourne CD, Mazel R: User's Manual for the Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Core Measures of Health-Related Quality of Life. Retrieved on May 24, 2006 from http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR162/index.html; 1995.
31. Failde I, Ramos I: Validity and reliability of the SF-36 Health Survey Questionnaire in patients with coronary artery disease. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2000, 53:359-365.
32. Spitzer WO, Dobson AJ, Hall J, Chesterman E, Levi J, Shepherd R, Battista RN, Catchlove BR: Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: a concise QL-index for use by physicians. Journal of Chronic Diseases 1981, 34:585-597.
33. Stein KD, Denniston M, Baker F, Dent M, Hann DM, Bushhouse S, West M: Validation of a modified Rotterdam Symptom Checklist for use with cancer patients in the united states. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2003, 26:975-989.
34. Spagnola S, Zabora J, BrintzenhofeSzoc K, Hooker C, Cohen G, Baker F: The Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale for Breast Cancer (SLDS-BC). Breast J 2003, 9:463-471.
35. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF quality of life assessment. The WHOQOL Group. Psychol Med 1998, 28:551-558.
36. da Silva Lima AF, Fleck M, Pechansky F, de Boni R, Sukop P: Psychometric properties of the World Health Organization quality of life instrument (WHOQoL-BREF) in alcoholic males: a pilot study. Quality of Life Research 2005, 14:473-478.
37. Zung WW: A Self-Rating Depression Scale. Archives of General Psychiatry 1965, 12:63-70.
38. Powell R: Psychometric properties of the Beck Depression Inventory and the Zung Self Rating Depression Scale in adults with mental retardation. Mental Retardation 2003, 41:88-95.
39. Thurber S, Snow M, Honts CR: The Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale: convergent validity and diagnostic discrimination. Assessment 2002, 9:401-405.
See all the reviews