The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) differ in responsiveness, relative efficiency, and therefore required sample size

Madeleine T. King, Melanie L Bell, Daniel Costa, Phyllis Butow, Byeongsang Oh

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

20 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objectives Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) are widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. We aimed to compare their responsiveness with clinically important effects and statistical efficiency to detect such effects. Study Design and Setting Secondary analysis of QLQ-C30 and FACT-G data from a randomized controlled trial of Medical Qigong (n = 162 heterogeneous cancer patients). Difference in responsiveness (DR) and relative efficiency (RE) were calculated for five domains. Results FACT-G total score was more efficient than QLQ-C30 global scale for detecting change within the intervention arm [RE = 0.31 (0.083, 0.69)] and comparing change between trial arms [RE = 0.17 (0.009, 0.58)]. In the social domain, the QLQ-C30 scale was more responsive [DR = 0.28 (0.024, 0.54)] and more efficient within arm only [RE = 5.25 (1.21, 232.26)]. In the physical, functional/role, and emotional domains, neither questionnaire was more responsive or efficient. Conclusion FACT-G would require about one-third the sample of QLQ-C30 to detect a given change in overall HRQOL, whereas in the social domain, it would require five times the sample size. FACT-G won advantage in overall HRQOL by reduced "noise" (smaller standard deviation achieved by summing across 27 items), whereas QLQ-C30 won advantage in the social domain via a larger "signal" (achieved through well-targeted item content).

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)100-107
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume67
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Sample Size
Quality of Life
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Qigong
Surveys and Questionnaires
Noise
Randomized Controlled Trials

Keywords

  • Health status
  • Quality of life
  • Reliability
  • Sample size
  • Statistical data analysis
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) differ in responsiveness, relative efficiency, and therefore required sample size. / King, Madeleine T.; Bell, Melanie L; Costa, Daniel; Butow, Phyllis; Oh, Byeongsang.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 67, No. 1, 01.2014, p. 100-107.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c9026059cc864821abaf727a6e440bf4,
title = "The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) differ in responsiveness, relative efficiency, and therefore required sample size",
abstract = "Objectives Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) are widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. We aimed to compare their responsiveness with clinically important effects and statistical efficiency to detect such effects. Study Design and Setting Secondary analysis of QLQ-C30 and FACT-G data from a randomized controlled trial of Medical Qigong (n = 162 heterogeneous cancer patients). Difference in responsiveness (DR) and relative efficiency (RE) were calculated for five domains. Results FACT-G total score was more efficient than QLQ-C30 global scale for detecting change within the intervention arm [RE = 0.31 (0.083, 0.69)] and comparing change between trial arms [RE = 0.17 (0.009, 0.58)]. In the social domain, the QLQ-C30 scale was more responsive [DR = 0.28 (0.024, 0.54)] and more efficient within arm only [RE = 5.25 (1.21, 232.26)]. In the physical, functional/role, and emotional domains, neither questionnaire was more responsive or efficient. Conclusion FACT-G would require about one-third the sample of QLQ-C30 to detect a given change in overall HRQOL, whereas in the social domain, it would require five times the sample size. FACT-G won advantage in overall HRQOL by reduced {"}noise{"} (smaller standard deviation achieved by summing across 27 items), whereas QLQ-C30 won advantage in the social domain via a larger {"}signal{"} (achieved through well-targeted item content).",
keywords = "Health status, Quality of life, Reliability, Sample size, Statistical data analysis, Validity",
author = "King, {Madeleine T.} and Bell, {Melanie L} and Daniel Costa and Phyllis Butow and Byeongsang Oh",
year = "2014",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.019",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "67",
pages = "100--107",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer-General (FACT-G) differ in responsiveness, relative efficiency, and therefore required sample size

AU - King, Madeleine T.

AU - Bell, Melanie L

AU - Costa, Daniel

AU - Butow, Phyllis

AU - Oh, Byeongsang

PY - 2014/1

Y1 - 2014/1

N2 - Objectives Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) are widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. We aimed to compare their responsiveness with clinically important effects and statistical efficiency to detect such effects. Study Design and Setting Secondary analysis of QLQ-C30 and FACT-G data from a randomized controlled trial of Medical Qigong (n = 162 heterogeneous cancer patients). Difference in responsiveness (DR) and relative efficiency (RE) were calculated for five domains. Results FACT-G total score was more efficient than QLQ-C30 global scale for detecting change within the intervention arm [RE = 0.31 (0.083, 0.69)] and comparing change between trial arms [RE = 0.17 (0.009, 0.58)]. In the social domain, the QLQ-C30 scale was more responsive [DR = 0.28 (0.024, 0.54)] and more efficient within arm only [RE = 5.25 (1.21, 232.26)]. In the physical, functional/role, and emotional domains, neither questionnaire was more responsive or efficient. Conclusion FACT-G would require about one-third the sample of QLQ-C30 to detect a given change in overall HRQOL, whereas in the social domain, it would require five times the sample size. FACT-G won advantage in overall HRQOL by reduced "noise" (smaller standard deviation achieved by summing across 27 items), whereas QLQ-C30 won advantage in the social domain via a larger "signal" (achieved through well-targeted item content).

AB - Objectives Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) are widely used cancer-specific health-related quality of life (HRQOL) questionnaires. We aimed to compare their responsiveness with clinically important effects and statistical efficiency to detect such effects. Study Design and Setting Secondary analysis of QLQ-C30 and FACT-G data from a randomized controlled trial of Medical Qigong (n = 162 heterogeneous cancer patients). Difference in responsiveness (DR) and relative efficiency (RE) were calculated for five domains. Results FACT-G total score was more efficient than QLQ-C30 global scale for detecting change within the intervention arm [RE = 0.31 (0.083, 0.69)] and comparing change between trial arms [RE = 0.17 (0.009, 0.58)]. In the social domain, the QLQ-C30 scale was more responsive [DR = 0.28 (0.024, 0.54)] and more efficient within arm only [RE = 5.25 (1.21, 232.26)]. In the physical, functional/role, and emotional domains, neither questionnaire was more responsive or efficient. Conclusion FACT-G would require about one-third the sample of QLQ-C30 to detect a given change in overall HRQOL, whereas in the social domain, it would require five times the sample size. FACT-G won advantage in overall HRQOL by reduced "noise" (smaller standard deviation achieved by summing across 27 items), whereas QLQ-C30 won advantage in the social domain via a larger "signal" (achieved through well-targeted item content).

KW - Health status

KW - Quality of life

KW - Reliability

KW - Sample size

KW - Statistical data analysis

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84888237905&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84888237905&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.019

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.02.019

M3 - Article

C2 - 24125895

AN - SCOPUS:84888237905

VL - 67

SP - 100

EP - 107

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 1

ER -