Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF, Taiwan version, across five kinds of Taiwanese cancer survivors: Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis

Chung Ying Lin, Jing Shiang Hwang, Wen Chung Wang, Wu Wei Lai, Wu Chou Su, Tzu Yi Wu, Grace Yao, Jung Der Wang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Quality of life (QoL) is important for clinicians to evaluate how cancer survivors judge their sense of well-being, and WHOQOL-BREF may be a good tool for clinical use. However, at least three issues remain unresolved: (1) the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF for cancer patients are insufficient; (2) the scoring method used for WHOQOL-BREF needs to be clarify; (3) whether different types of cancer patients interpret the WHOQOL-BREF similarly. Methods: We recruited 1000 outpatients with head/neck cancer, 1000 with colorectal cancer, 965 with liver cancer, 1438 with lung cancer and 1299 with gynecologic cancers in a medical center. Data analyses included Rasch models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson correlations. Results: The mean WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were between 13.34 and 14.77 among all participants. CFA supported construct validity; Rasch models revealed that almost all items were embedded in their expected domains and were interpreted similarly across five types of cancer patients; all correlation coefficients between Rasch scores and original domain scores were above 0.9. Conclusion: The linear relationship between Rasch scores and domain scores suggested that the current calculations for domain scores were applicable and without serious bias. Clinical practitioners may regularly collect and record the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores into electronic health records.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)215-222
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of the Formosan Medical Association
Volume118
Issue number1P2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2019 Jan

Fingerprint

Taiwan
Psychometrics
Statistical Factor Analysis
Survivors
Neoplasms
Electronic Health Records
Liver Neoplasms
Head and Neck Neoplasms
Colorectal Neoplasms
Lung Neoplasms
Research Design
Outpatients
Quality of Life

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

@article{abd7e0cf9e5b442a9c86aa6a1821df74,
title = "Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF, Taiwan version, across five kinds of Taiwanese cancer survivors: Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis",
abstract = "Background: Quality of life (QoL) is important for clinicians to evaluate how cancer survivors judge their sense of well-being, and WHOQOL-BREF may be a good tool for clinical use. However, at least three issues remain unresolved: (1) the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF for cancer patients are insufficient; (2) the scoring method used for WHOQOL-BREF needs to be clarify; (3) whether different types of cancer patients interpret the WHOQOL-BREF similarly. Methods: We recruited 1000 outpatients with head/neck cancer, 1000 with colorectal cancer, 965 with liver cancer, 1438 with lung cancer and 1299 with gynecologic cancers in a medical center. Data analyses included Rasch models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson correlations. Results: The mean WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were between 13.34 and 14.77 among all participants. CFA supported construct validity; Rasch models revealed that almost all items were embedded in their expected domains and were interpreted similarly across five types of cancer patients; all correlation coefficients between Rasch scores and original domain scores were above 0.9. Conclusion: The linear relationship between Rasch scores and domain scores suggested that the current calculations for domain scores were applicable and without serious bias. Clinical practitioners may regularly collect and record the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores into electronic health records.",
author = "Lin, {Chung Ying} and Hwang, {Jing Shiang} and Wang, {Wen Chung} and Lai, {Wu Wei} and Su, {Wu Chou} and Wu, {Tzu Yi} and Grace Yao and Wang, {Jung Der}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jfma.2018.03.018",
language = "English",
volume = "118",
pages = "215--222",
journal = "Journal of the Formosan Medical Association",
issn = "0929-6646",
publisher = "Excerpta Medica Asia Ltd.",
number = "1P2",

}

Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF, Taiwan version, across five kinds of Taiwanese cancer survivors : Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis. / Lin, Chung Ying; Hwang, Jing Shiang; Wang, Wen Chung; Lai, Wu Wei; Su, Wu Chou; Wu, Tzu Yi; Yao, Grace; Wang, Jung Der.

In: Journal of the Formosan Medical Association, Vol. 118, No. 1P2, 01.2019, p. 215-222.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF, Taiwan version, across five kinds of Taiwanese cancer survivors

T2 - Rasch analysis and confirmatory factor analysis

AU - Lin, Chung Ying

AU - Hwang, Jing Shiang

AU - Wang, Wen Chung

AU - Lai, Wu Wei

AU - Su, Wu Chou

AU - Wu, Tzu Yi

AU - Yao, Grace

AU - Wang, Jung Der

PY - 2019/1

Y1 - 2019/1

N2 - Background: Quality of life (QoL) is important for clinicians to evaluate how cancer survivors judge their sense of well-being, and WHOQOL-BREF may be a good tool for clinical use. However, at least three issues remain unresolved: (1) the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF for cancer patients are insufficient; (2) the scoring method used for WHOQOL-BREF needs to be clarify; (3) whether different types of cancer patients interpret the WHOQOL-BREF similarly. Methods: We recruited 1000 outpatients with head/neck cancer, 1000 with colorectal cancer, 965 with liver cancer, 1438 with lung cancer and 1299 with gynecologic cancers in a medical center. Data analyses included Rasch models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson correlations. Results: The mean WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were between 13.34 and 14.77 among all participants. CFA supported construct validity; Rasch models revealed that almost all items were embedded in their expected domains and were interpreted similarly across five types of cancer patients; all correlation coefficients between Rasch scores and original domain scores were above 0.9. Conclusion: The linear relationship between Rasch scores and domain scores suggested that the current calculations for domain scores were applicable and without serious bias. Clinical practitioners may regularly collect and record the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores into electronic health records.

AB - Background: Quality of life (QoL) is important for clinicians to evaluate how cancer survivors judge their sense of well-being, and WHOQOL-BREF may be a good tool for clinical use. However, at least three issues remain unresolved: (1) the psychometric properties of the WHOQOL-BREF for cancer patients are insufficient; (2) the scoring method used for WHOQOL-BREF needs to be clarify; (3) whether different types of cancer patients interpret the WHOQOL-BREF similarly. Methods: We recruited 1000 outpatients with head/neck cancer, 1000 with colorectal cancer, 965 with liver cancer, 1438 with lung cancer and 1299 with gynecologic cancers in a medical center. Data analyses included Rasch models, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and Pearson correlations. Results: The mean WHOQOL-BREF domain scores were between 13.34 and 14.77 among all participants. CFA supported construct validity; Rasch models revealed that almost all items were embedded in their expected domains and were interpreted similarly across five types of cancer patients; all correlation coefficients between Rasch scores and original domain scores were above 0.9. Conclusion: The linear relationship between Rasch scores and domain scores suggested that the current calculations for domain scores were applicable and without serious bias. Clinical practitioners may regularly collect and record the WHOQOL-BREF domain scores into electronic health records.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85045333389&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85045333389&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.03.018

DO - 10.1016/j.jfma.2018.03.018

M3 - Article

C2 - 29661488

AN - SCOPUS:85045333389

VL - 118

SP - 215

EP - 222

JO - Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

JF - Journal of the Formosan Medical Association

SN - 0929-6646

IS - 1P2

ER -