Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Validation study of the EORTC information questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-INFO25) in Iranian cancer patients

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Introduction

Developing a tool for measuring patient’s needs is a vital step in the process of cancer treatment and research. In recent years, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) made a questionnaire to measure cancer patients’ received information. Since validity and reliability of any instrument should be evaluated in the new environment and culture, the aim of this study was to assess the validity and reliability of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 in Iranian cancer patients.

Materials and methods

One hundred seventy-three patients with different stages of cancer filled questionnaire EORTC QLQ-INFO25, EORTC QLQ-C30, and EORTC IN-PATSAT32. Twenty-five patients answered the questionnaire twice at an interval of 2 weeks. Reliability and validity of the questionnaire was measured by Cronbach’s alpha, interclass correlation, test retest, inter-rater agreement (IRA), and exploratory factorial analyses.

Results

Using a conservative approach, the IRA for the overall relevancy and clarity of the tool was 87/86% and 83.33 %, respectively. Overall appropriateness and clarity were 94.13 and 91.87 %, respectively. Overall integrity of the instrument was determined to be 85 %. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for all domains and total inventory were top 70 and 90 %, respectively. Interclass correlation index ranges between 0.708 and 0.965. Exploratory factorial analyses demonstrate six fields suitable for instrument. Correlation between areas of the questionnaires EORTC QLQ-INFO25 and EORTC in-Patsat32 represents the convergent validity of the questionnaire. Also, results show a standard divergent validity in all domains of the questionnaire (Rho <0.3). Low correlation between the areas of the questionnaires EORTC QLQ-INFO25 and EORTC QLQ-C30 (<0.3) demonstrates the divergence validity of the questionnaire.

Conclusion

The results showed that Persian version of the questionnaire EORTC QLQ-INFO25 is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring the perception of information in cancer patients.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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. Mallinger JB, Griggs JJ, Shields CG (2005) Patient-centered care and breast cancer survivors’ satisfaction with information. Patient Educ Couns 57(3):342–349

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mesters I, van den Borne B, De Boer M, Pruyn J (2001) Measuring information needs among cancer patients. Patient Educ Couns 43(3):253–262

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Arraras JI, Kuljanic-Vlasic K, Bjordal K, Yun YH, Efficace F, Holzner B et al (2007) EORTC QLQ-INFO26: a questionnaire to assess information given to cancer patients a preliminary analysis in eight countries. Psychooncology 16(3):249–254

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Meredith C, Symonds P, Webster L, Lamont D, Pyper E, Gillis CR et al (1996) Information needs of cancer patients in west Scotland: cross sectional survey of patients’ views. BMJ 313(7059):724–726

    Article  PubMed Central  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Okamura H, Fukui S, Nagasaka Y, Koike M, Uchitomi Y (2003) Psycho educational intervention for patients with primary breast cancer and patient satisfaction with information: an exploratory analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 80(3):331–338

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Rainey LC (1985) Effects of preparatory patient education for radiation oncology patients. Cancer 56(5):1056–1061

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Rubin HR, Gandek B, Rogers WH, Kosinski M, McHorney CA, Ware JE Jr (1993) Patients’ ratings of outpatient visits in different practice settings. JAMA: J Am Med Assoc 270(7):835–840

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Ware JE, Davis AR (1983) Behavioral consequences of consumer dissatisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plan 6(3–4):291–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Brandt B (eds) (1991) Informational needs and selected variables in patients receiving brachytherapy. Oncol Nurs Forum

  10. Tattersall MH, Butow PN, Griffin A-M, Dunn SM (1994) The take-home message: patients prefer consultation audiotapes to summary letters. J Clin Oncol 12(6):1305–1311

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Poroch D (1995) The effect of preparatory patient education on the anxiety and satisfaction of cancer patients receiving radiation therapy. Cancer Nurs 18(3):206–214

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Degner LF, Davison BJ, Sloan JA, Mueller B (1998) Development of a scale to measure information needs in cancer care. J Nurs Meas 6(2):137–153

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Galloway S, Graydin J, Harrison D et al (1997) Informational needs of women with a recent diagnosis of breast cancer: development and initial testing of a tool. J Adv Nurs 25(6):1175–1183

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Templeton H, Coates V (2003) Informational needs of men with prostate cancer on hormonal manipulation therapy. Patient Educ Couns 49(3):243–256

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Halkett GK, Kristjanson LJ (2007) Validity and reliability testing of two instruments to measure breast cancer patients’ concerns and information needs relating to radiation therapy. Radiat Oncol 2:43

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Bonevski B, Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A et al (2000) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with cancer. Cancer 88(1):217–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Davidson JR, Findlay L, Zetes-Zanatta L et al (2003) Assessing the supportive care needs of patients who attend a cancer centre: development and feasibility of a questionnaire. Qual Life Res 2:814

    Google Scholar 

  18. Arraras JI, Greimel E, Sezer O, Chie W-C, Bergenmar M, Costantini A et al (2010) An international validation study of the EORTC QLQ-INFO25 questionnaire: an instrument to assess the information given to cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 46(15):2726–2738

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS Using multivariate statistics. Fifth edition

  20. Montazeri A, Harirchi I, Vahdani M, Khaleghi F, Jarvandi S, Ebrahimi M, Haji-Mahmoodi M (1999) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30): translation and validation study of the Iranian version. Support Care Cancer 7(6):400–406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ahmadi M, Salmanian S, Nejat SN, Razavi SM, Zendedel K, Asadi-Lari M Psychometric properties of the Persian version of satisfaction with care EORTC IN-PATSAT32 questionnaire among Iranian cancer patients. Asia Pac J Cancer Prev. Corrected proof

  22. Bredart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby J et al (2005) An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). Eur J Cancer 41:2120–2131

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Cull A SM, Bjordal K, Aaronson NK, West K and Bottomley A. on behalf of the EORTC Quality of Life Group. EORTC Quality of Life Group translation procedure. Brussels: EORTC Quality of Life Group Publication (2002) [updated April 2002]

  24. Hilton A, Skrutkowski M (2002) Translating instruments into other languages: development and testing processes. Cancer Nurs 25(1):1–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Martin Bland J, Altman D (1986) Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 327(8476):307–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Abdollahpour I, Nedjat S, Noroozian M, Golestan B, Majdzadeh R (2010) Development of a caregiver burden questionnaire for the patients with dementia in Iran. Int J Prev Med 1(4):233–241

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL (1991) Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12(4):S142–S158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Weir JP (2005) Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19(1):231–240

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Streiner DL, Norman GR (2006) Precision and accuracy: two terms that are neither. J Clin Epidemiol 59(4):327–330

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Arraras JI, Manterola A, Hernández B, de la Vega FA, Martinez M, Vila M et al (2011) The EORTC information questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-INFO25. Validation study for Spanish patients. Clin Transl Oncol 13(6):401–410

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of public health, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohsen Asadi-lari

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Enghelab Sq., Pour Sina St., Tehran, Iran

    Mahin Ahmadi Pishkuhi, Saeid Safiri & Mahdi Sepidarkish

  3. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, School of Health, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran

    Amir Almasi-Hashiani

Authors
  1. Mohsen Asadi-lari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mahin Ahmadi Pishkuhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Amir Almasi-Hashiani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Saeid Safiri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mahdi Sepidarkish
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mahdi Sepidarkish.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Asadi-lari, M., Ahmadi Pishkuhi, M., Almasi-Hashiani, A. et al. Validation study of the EORTC information questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-INFO25) in Iranian cancer patients. Support Care Cancer 23, 1875–1882 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2510-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-014-2510-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation