Format

Send to

Choose Destination
See comment in PubMed Commons below
Qual Life Res. 2012 Nov;21(9):1607-17. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6. Epub 2011 Dec 21.

Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Author information

1
Division of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Plesmanlaan 121, 1066 CX, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To investigate the statistical fit of alternative higher order models for summarizing the health-related quality of life profile generated by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

METHODS:

A 50% random sample was drawn from a dataset of more than 9,000 pre-treatment QLQ-C30 v 3.0 questionnaires completed by cancer patients from 48 countries, differing in primary tumor site and disease stage. Building on a "standard" 14-dimensional QLQ-C30 model, confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare 6 higher order models, including a 1-dimensional (1D) model, a 2D "symptom burden and function" model, two 2D "mental/physical" models, and two models with a "formative" (or "causal") formulation of "symptom burden," and "function."

RESULTS:

All of the models considered had at least an "adequate" fit to the data: the less restricted the model, the better the fit. The RMSEA fit indices for the various models ranged from 0.042 to 0.061, CFI's 0.90-0.96, and TLI's from 0.96 to 0.98. All chi-square tests were significant. One of the Physical/Mental models had fit indices superior to the other models considered.

CONCLUSIONS:

The Physical/Mental health model had the best fit of the higher order models considered, and enjoys empirical and theoretical support in comparable instruments and applications.

PMID:
22187352
PMCID:
PMC3472059
DOI:
10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6
[Indexed for MEDLINE]
Free PMC Article
PubMed Commons home

PubMed Commons

0 comments

    Supplemental Content

    Full text links

    Icon for Springer Icon for PubMed Central
    Loading ...
    Support Center