Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients
- PMID: 17703910
- PMCID: PMC2732111
- DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.01.016
Validation of single-item linear analog scale assessment of quality of life in neuro-oncology patients
Abstract
Assessment of patient quality of life (QOL) requires balancing the details provided by multi-item assessments with the reduced burden of single-item assessments. In this project, we investigated the psychometric properties of single-item Linear Analog Scale Assessments (LASAs) for patients with newly diagnosed high-grade gliomas. Measures included QOL LASAs (overall, physical, emotional, spiritual, intellectual), Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), Profile of Mood States (POMS; overall, confusion, fatigue), and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Brain (FACT-Br; overall, brain, physical, emotional). Associations of LASA measures with SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br domains and with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance score (PS) and Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) were assessed. Repeated measures ANOVA models compared the change over time of LASAs and SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br. Two hundred five patients completed the assessments across three time points. To allow comparison across measures, all scores were converted to a scale of 0-100, with higher scores indicating better QOL. LASA mean scores ranged from 60 to 78; SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br ranged from 62 to 81. FACT-Br physical (P<0.001) and POMS fatigue subscale (P=0.005) decreased over time, as did LASA physical (P=0.08). LASA scales were strongly associated with corresponding scales on SDS, POMS, and FACT-Br (0.44<rho<0.65; P<0.001). LASA was negatively associated with PS and positively with MMSE, with associations similar in magnitude to the other QOL and psychosocial measures. The data suggest that the single-item LASA scales are valid for assessing QOL of cancer patients and are an appropriate alternative when a shorter instrument is warranted.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors have no conflict of interest or financial involvement with this manuscript.
References
-
- Sloan J, Frost M, Berzon R, et al. The clinical significance of quality of life assessments in oncology: a summary for clinicians. Support Care Cancer. 2006;14(10):988–998. - PubMed
-
- Rummans T, Bostwick M, Clark M. Maintaining quality of life at the end of life. Mayo Clin Proc. 2000;75:1305–1310. - PubMed
-
- Cella D. Methods and problems in measuring quality of life. Support Care Cancer. 1995;3:11–22. - PubMed
-
- Cheung Y, Goh C, Thumboo J, et al. Variability and sample size requirements of quality of life measures: a randomized study of three major questionnaires. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:4936–4944. - PubMed
-
- Osoba D. A taxonomy of the uses of health-related quality-of-life instruments in cancer care and the clinical meaningfulness of the results. Med Care. 2002;40(6 Suppl):III31–III38. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical
