Skip to main content
Log in

The European Organization for Research and treatment of cancer approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules

  • Special Report
  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life (the Study Group) has adopted a modular approach to quality of life (QOL) assessment in cancer clinical trials. A ‘core’ instrument—the QLQ-C30—has been designed to cover a range of QOL issues relevant to a broad spectrum of cancer patients. It is intended that this QLQ-C30 be supplemented by more specific subscales (‘modules’) to assess aspects of QOL of particular importance to specific subgroups of patients. Since individual members of the Study Group were to be involved in module development, guidelines were required to standardize the module development process in order to ensure uniformly high quality across modules. These guidelines are presented in this paper. The term ‘module’ is defined, the composition of modules is outlined, and the criteria used to develop modules are specified. The module development process, consisting of four phases (generation of relevant QOL issues, operationalization of the QOL issues into a set of items, pretesting the module questionnaire, and large-scale field-testing) is described in detail. Further, issues related to cross-cultural instrument development, and the need for monitoring the module development process from within the Study Group are discussed. Finally, experiences with developing two site-specific modules (i.e., for head and neck, and breast cancer), are presented and the extent to which the guidelines meet practical requirements is discussed. The guidelines appear to provide a practical tool for module construction, that can facilitate the development of a comprehensive system for assessing the QOL of cancer patients internationally.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bergner, M, Bobbit, RA, Carter, WB, Gilson, BS. The Sickness Impact Profile: Development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981; 19: 787–805.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Hunt, S, McKenna, SP, McEwen, J, et al. The Nottingham Health Profile: Subjective health status and medical consultations. Soc Sci Med 1981; 15A: 221–229.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Med Care 1992; 30: 473–483.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Meenan, RF, Gertman, PM, Mason, JH. Measuring health status in arthritis: The Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales. Artritis Rheum 1980; 23: 146–152.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schipper, H, Clinch, J, McMurray, A. Measuring the quality of life of cancer patients: The Functional Living Index-Cancer: Development and validation. J Clin Oncol 1984; 2: 472–483.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Schag, CC, Heinrich, RL. The CAncer Rehabilitation Evaluation System (CARES). Manual. Los Angeles: CARES Consultants, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Aaronson, NK, Bullinger, M, Ahmedzai, SA. A modular approach to quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Rec Results in Cancer Res 1988; 111: 231–247.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, SA, Bergman, B, et al. The EORTC QLQ-C30: A quality of life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993; 85: 365–376.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sprangers M, Cull A for the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. Guidelines for Module Development. Amsterdam/Edinburgh: 1992, internal report.

  10. Aaronson, NK, Ahmedzai, SA, Bullinger, M, et al. The EORTC Core Quality of Life Questionnaire: interim results of an international field study. In: Osoba, D (ed). The Effect of Cancer on Quality of Life. Boston: CRC Press. 1991: 185–204.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Belson, WR. The Design and Understanding of Survey Questions. Aldershot, England: Gower, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Converse JM, Presser S. Survey Questions. Handcrafting the Standard Questionnaire. Sage University Paper (63). Beverly Hills, 1986.

  13. Kornhauser, A, Sheatsley, PB. Questionnaire construction and interview procedure. In: Selltiz C, Wrightsman LS, Cook SW. Research Methods in Social Relations. Holt, Rhinehart and Winston. New York, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Payne, SL. The Art of Asking Questions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Schuman, H, Presser, S. Questions and Answers in Attitude Surveys: Experiments of Question Form, Wording, and Context. New York: Academic Press, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Studman, S, Bradburn, N. Asking Questions: A Practical Guide to Questionnaire Design. San Fransisco: Jossey-Bass, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Aaronson, NK, Acquadro, C, Alonso, J, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Quality Life Res 1992; 1: 349–351.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hunt, SM. Cross-cultural issues in the use of sociomedical indicators. Health Policy 1986; 6: 149–158.

    Google Scholar 

  19. European Group for Health Measurement and Quality of Life Assessment: Hunt SM, Alonso J, Bucquet D, Niero M, Wiklund I, McKenna S. Cross cultural adaptation of health measures. Health Policy 1991; 19: 33–44.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Deyo, RA. Pitfalls in measuring the health status of Mexican Americans: Comparative validity of the English and Spanish Impact Profile. Am J Public Health 1984; 74: 569–573.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bjordal, K, Kaasa, S, Ahlner-Elmqvist, M, Tollesson, E, Bonde, A. Development of a head and neck cancer-specific module for use with the EORTC Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Quality Life Res. 1993; 2: 72.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Sprangers M, Groenvold M, te Velde A, et al. for the EORTC Study Group on Quality of Life. The Construction of a Breast Cancer Module. Amsterdam: 1992, internal report.

  23. Groenvold M. Quality of life in breast cancer adjuvant therapy. What should be measured? Poster presented at the ECCO-6, Florence, 1991.

  24. Gilson, BS, Erickson, D, Chavez, CT, Bobbit, RA, Bergner, M, Carter, WB. A chicano version of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP). Culture Med Psychiatr 1980; 4: 137–150.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Jacobs, HM, Luttik, A, Touw-Otten, FWMM, Kastein, M, Melker, RAde. Measuring impact of sickness in patients with nonspecific abdominal complaints in a Dutch family practice setting. Med Care 1992; 30: 244–251.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Patrick, DL, Sittampalam, Y, Somerville, SM, Carter, WB, Bergner, M. A cross-cultural comparison of health status values. Am J Publ Health 1985; 75: 1402–1407.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hunt, SM, Wiklund, I. Cross-cultural variation in the weighting of health statements: a comparison of English and Swedish valuations. Health Policy 1987; 8: 227–235.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Alonso, J, Anto, JM, Moreno, C. Spanish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: translation and preliminary validity. Am J Publ Health 1990; 80: 704–708.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cella, DF. Preliminary Manual Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Scales. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Additional information

This work was supported, in part, by grants from the Dutch Cancer Society (NKI 90-A), the Imperial Cancer Research Fund (ICRF), and the Norwegian Cancer Society.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sprangers, M.A.G., Cull, A., Bjordal, K. et al. The European Organization for Research and treatment of cancer approach to quality of life assessment: guidelines for developing questionnaire modules. Qual Life Res 2, 287–295 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00434800

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00434800

Keywords

Navigation