Suppr超能文献

欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织核心生活质量问卷(EORTC QLQ-C30)交互式语音应答(IVR)版本的重测信度

Test-Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30.

作者信息

Lundy J Jason, Coons Stephen Joel, Aaronson Neil K

机构信息

Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium, Critical Path Institute, 1730 E. River Road, Tucson, AZ, 85718-5893, USA,

出版信息

Patient. 2015 Apr;8(2):165-70. doi: 10.1007/s40271-014-0071-2.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to assess the test-retest reliability of an interactive voice response (IVR) version of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30.

METHODS

A convenience sample of outpatient cancer clinic patients (n = 127) was asked to complete the IVR version of the QLQ-C30 twice, 2 days apart. The QLQ-C30 is a 30-item, cancer-specific questionnaire composed of single-item and multi-item scales. The instrument has five functional scales (physical, role, cognitive, emotional, and social), three symptom scales (fatigue, pain, and nausea/vomiting), and a global quality-of-life scale. The remaining single items assess dyspnea, appetite loss, insomnia, constipation, diarrhea, and financial problems. The analyses focused on intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), comparing the ICC 95 % lower confidence interval (CI) value with a critical value of 0.70.

RESULTS

The ICCs for the nine multi-item scales were all above 0.69, ranging from 0.698 to 0.926 (ICC 95 % lower CI value range 0.588-0.895). All of the scales were significantly different from our threshold reliability of 0.70, with the exception of the cognitive functioning scale. The ICCs for the six single items ranged from 0.741 to 0.883 (ICC 95 % lower CI value range 0.646-0.835), and three of the six were statistically different from 0.70. The evidence supports the stability of 11 of the 15 scores obtained on the IVR version of the QLQ-C30 upon repeated measurement.

CONCLUSION

The measurement equivalence of the IVR and paper versions of the QLQ-C30 has been reported elsewhere. This analysis provides evidence demonstrating adequate test-retest reliability of the IVR version for 11 of the QLQ-C30's 15 scores.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估欧洲癌症研究与治疗组织(EORTC)QLQ-C30交互式语音应答(IVR)版本的重测信度。

方法

选取门诊癌症诊所患者的便利样本(n = 127),要求他们在间隔2天的时间里两次完成QLQ-C30的IVR版本。QLQ-C30是一份包含30个条目的癌症特异性问卷,由单项和多项量表组成。该工具包括五个功能量表(身体、角色、认知、情感和社会)、三个症状量表(疲劳、疼痛和恶心/呕吐)以及一个总体生活质量量表。其余单项评估呼吸困难、食欲减退、失眠、便秘、腹泻和经济问题。分析集中在组内相关系数(ICC),将ICC 95% 下限置信区间(CI)值与临界值0.70进行比较。

结果

九个多项量表的ICC均高于0.69,范围为0.698至0.926(ICC 95% 下限CI值范围为0.588 - 0.895)。除认知功能量表外,所有量表均与我们设定的0.70的阈值信度有显著差异。六个单项的ICC范围为0.741至0.883(ICC 95% 下限CI值范围为0.646 - 0.835),六个中的三个在统计学上与0.70有差异。证据支持在重复测量时,QLQ-C30的IVR版本所获得的15个分数中的11个分数具有稳定性。

结论

QLQ-C30的IVR版本和纸质版本的测量等效性在其他地方已有报道。本分析提供的证据表明,对于QLQ-C30的15个分数中的11个,IVR版本具有足够的重测信度。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验