These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.
Pubmed for Handhelds
PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS
Search MEDLINE/PubMed
Title: Variability and sample size requirements of quality-of-life measures: a randomized study of three major questionnaires. Author: Cheung YB, Goh C, Thumboo J, Khoo KS, Wee J. Journal: J Clin Oncol; 2005 Aug 01; 23(22):4936-44. PubMed ID: 16051946. Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the variability and sample size requirements of the global quality-of-life (QOL) scores of the following three major QOL instruments: the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G), Functional Living Index-Cancer (FLIC), and European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire C30 (EORTC QLQ-C30). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Cancer patients were randomly assigned to answer two of the three instruments using an incomplete block design (n = 1,268). The instruments were compared in terms of coefficient of variation, effect size in detecting a difference between patients with different performance status, and correlation coefficient between scores at baseline and follow-up. RESULTS: The FACT-G and FLIC had significantly smaller coefficients of variation than the EORTC QLQ-C30 (both P < .05). The FLIC also had significantly larger correlation coefficients between scores at baseline and follow-up than the EORTC QLQ-C30 (P < .05). The FACT-G and the FLIC had a larger effect size in a cross-sectional and longitudinal setting, respectively, than the EORTC QLQ-C30 in differentiating patients with different performance status (both P < .05). CONCLUSION: In some aspects, the FACT-G and FLIC global QOL scores had smaller variability and larger discriminative ability than the EORTC QLQ-C30. Further research using other criteria to compare the three instruments is recommended.[Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]