SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Turkish Journal of Cancer / 2002 / Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4

A study on the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the MOOLS-CA2 in people with cancer

Rukiye PINAR
Pages
148–163
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Obtained findings suggest that the Turkish version of the MQOLS-CA2 is a valid and reliable tool that could be employed in quality of life research on people with cancer.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to examine reliability and validity of the MQOLS-CA2 (Multidimensional Quality of Life Scale-Cancer) in people with cancer.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Study sample was 72 people with cancer.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Obtained findings suggest that the Turkish version of the MQOLS-CA2 is a valid and reliable tool that could be employed in quality of life research on people with cancer.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Hastalar · Sonuçların tekrarlanabilirliği · Sağlık bakımı araştırmaları

Abstract

The aim of this study was to examine reliability and validity of the MQOLS-CA2 (Multidimensional Quality of Life Scale-Cancer) in people with cancer. Study sample was 72 people with cancer. Validity was established with content validity, construct validity and criterion validity. Content validity was made using literature review, expert review and acceptability rate. Factor analysis was used for construct validity. Comparing global score of the MQOLS-CA2 with the Medical Outcomes Study -MOS- 36 Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) made criterion validity. Reliability was assessed using the internal consistency and test-retest methods. MQOLS-CA2 showed good content validity. The acceptability rate was excellent (96%). Factor analysis confirmed the presence of 5 factors in the MQOLS-CA2. A strong correlation of the MQOLS-CA2 score with the SF-36 was coherent (r: 0.78, P<0.001). The results of the test-retest method of the MQOLS-CA-2 showed the stability of 5 subscales in the MQOLS-CA2. Reliability coefficient of the subscales found through test-retest ranged between 0.56 and 0.91. The Cronbach alpha was calculated as 0.76. Obtained findings suggest that the Turkish version of the MQOLS-CA2 is a valid and reliable tool that could be employed in quality of life research on people with cancer.

🔖

Cite This Article

PINAR, R. (2002). A study on the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the MOOLS-CA2 in people with cancer. Turkish Journal of Cancer, Cilt: 32 - Sayı: 4, 148–163. https://ajindex.com/articles/368370

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (18)

  1. World Health Organization: Constitution of the World Health Organization. WHO Basic Documents, Geneva, 1948
  2. Walker CS. Quality of Life: Assessment and Application. London: MTP press, 1987;11-3
  3. Cella DF, Cherin EA. Quality of life during and after cancer treatment. ComprTher 1988; 14:69-75
  4. Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of Life: Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation. Chichesten John-.Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2000;3-27. 5^ Hanestad BR. Quality of Life and Insulin Dependent Diabetes Mellitus. Doctorate Dissertation, Bergen University, 1992
  5. Padilla GV, Grant MM, Ferrell B. Nursing research into quality of life. Qual Life Research 1992; 1:341-8
  6. Spilker B. Quality of Life Assessments in Clinical Trials. New York: Raven Press, 1990;3-9
  7. De Haes JC, van Knippenberg FCE. The quality of life of cancer patients: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med 1985;20:809-17
  8. Guyatt GH, Feeny D, Patrick D. Issues in quality of life measurement in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1991; 12(4 suppl):81-90
  9. Sullivan M. Quality of life assessment in medicine: concepts, definitions, purpose and basic tools. Nord J Psychiatry 1992;46:79-83
  10. Bergner M. Quality of life, health status and clinical research. Med Care 1989:27:148-56
  11. EuroQOL Group. EuroQOL: a new facility for the measurement of health related quality of life. Health Policy 1990;16:199-208
  12. Hunt S, McKenna SP, McEven J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981;15 A:221-29
  13. Ware JE, Sherboume CD. The MOS 36 Item Short Form Health Survey. Med Care 1992;30:473-83
  14. Bergner M, Bobbitt RA, Carter WB, et al. Sickness Impact Profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981:19:787-805
  15. Byock IR. Missoula-VITAS Quality of Life Index: version-25S. Missoula, MT: VITAS Healthcare Corporation, 1995
  16. Cohen SR, Mount BM, Bruera E, et al. Validity of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire in the palliative care setting: a multi-centre Canadian study demonstrating,Jhe importance of the existential domain. Palliat Med 1997:11:3-20
  17. Aarönson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, et al. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993:85:365-76
  18. Cella DF, Tolsky DS, Gray G, et al. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale: development and validation of