Single- vs. Multiple-Item Instruments in the Assessment of Quality of Life in Patients with Advanced Cancer
Department of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation Medicine, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas, USA.Journal of pain and symptom management (Impact Factor: 2.8). 03/2010; 39(3):564-71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2009.08.006
Although multidimensional instruments are usually used to measure quality of life in advanced cancer patients, recent research suggests that single-item assessments can provide a reliable measure. Using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) instrument as a gold standard, we assessed the performance of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System "feeling of well-being" (ESAS WB) item. We reviewed the data from 213 patients enrolled in six clinical trials. We determined the association between baseline ESAS WB and FACT-G total and subscale domain scores (Physical Well-being [PWB], Social/Family Well-being [SWB], Emotional Well-being [EWB], and Functional Well-being [FWB]. We also calculated the association between baseline (T1) and second (T2) observations of ESAS WB and of FACT-G total score. In addition, we predicted the change in FACT-G predicted by the ESAS WB score using regression analysis. Mean age was 60 (SD 12) years and 48% were female. The Spearman correlation coefficient of ESAS WB and FACT-G was -0.48 (P<0.0001). Correlations with FACT-G subscale domains were also highly significant, except for the SWB domain (P=0.08). The Pearson correlation coefficient for T1-T2 in ESAS WB and FACT-G for 146 patients was -0.36 (P<0.0001). The change in ESAS WB corresponding to FACT-G published minimally important difference was -0.24 for 3, -1.55 for 5, and -2.87 for 7, respectively. These results suggest that the single-item measure ESAS WB best reflects the total score on the FACT-G and PWB, EWB, and FWB domains but not on the SWB domain.
Conference Paper: The modelling of F0 contours[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There is interest in speech research for a model that captures all the relevant features of the intonation contour. Such a model is capable of generating natural intonation contours from the minimum amount of input data. Much of the work on this type of modelling has been performed for Dutch (1). Their model gave a result that was "perceptually-equivalent" to an original contour. A deficiency in this type of description is that perceptually-equivalent is not synonymous with natural. Although a contour may be perceived as being equivalent to an original, it may not necessarily be indistinguishable in an auditory sense from an original intonation contour. The model described in this paper has the capacity to produce intonation contours for English that are perceptually-equivalent and also auditorily indistinguishable from the original. The model consists of the concatenation of contour segments; each segment being modelled by a quadratic equation.Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing, IEEE International Conference on ICASSP '82.; 06/1982
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is developed for daily symptom assessment. Validation studies tested a variety of languages and patients. The purpose was to carry out a comprehensive examination of the psychometric properties of the ESAS through validation of the version in Spanish advanced cancer patients. A reverse translation method was used to translate the ESAS. Previous studies find appropriate Spanish terms to explore, with verbal scales, fatigue, depression and anxiety. Psychometric aspects evaluated were reliability, validity, responsiveness and utility. 171 advanced cancer patients participated. Internal consistency with Cronbach's Alpha was 0.75. In test-retest (0-6h), Spearma's correlation was between 0.65 and 0.94. Factor analysis found 3 central domains: 'soft' and 'hard physical' and 'emotional'. Concurrent validity with the Rotterdam Symptom Check List (RSCL) found good correlation in physical symptoms (Kappa until 0.66) but weak correlation in emotional symptoms (Kappa 0.35). Discriminant validity (Spearman) found significant differences (p<0.001) classifying by Karnofsky. ESAS discriminate between inpatients and outpatients (Mann-Whitney, p<0.001). Responsiveness was tested with ESAS at 0-48 h (Wilcoxon test, p<0.05). Average time to complete the instrument was 5.5 min. ESAS is a valid, reliable, responsive and feasible instrument with adequate psychometric properties when tested on Spanish advanced cancer patients.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 04/2011; 47(12):1863-72. DOI:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.03.027 · 5.42 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Single-item measures of psychological experiences are often viewed as psychometrically suspect. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the validity and utility of a single-item measure of self-efficacy in a clinical sample of treatment-seeking young adults. Inpatient young adults (N = 303, age = 18-24, 26% female) were assessed at intake to residential treatment, end of treatment, and at 1, 3, and 6 months following discharge. The single-item measure of self-efficacy consistently correlated positively with a well-established 20-item measure of self-efficacy and negatively with temptation scores from the same scale, demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity. It also consistently predicted relapse to substance use at 1-, 3-, and 6-month assessments postdischarge, even after controlling for other predictors of relapse (e.g., controlled environment), whereas global or subscale scores of the 20-item scale did not. Based on these findings, we encourage the use of this single-item measure of self-efficacy in research and clinical practice.Journal of substance abuse treatment 06/2011; 41(3):305-12. DOI:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.04.005 · 2.90 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.