4.1 Article

Quality of life in head and neck cancer patients after surgical resection: translation into Cantonese and validation of the EORTC QLQ-H&N35

Journal

ACTA OTO-LARYNGOLOGICA
Volume 129, Issue 7, Pages 779-785

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/00016480802398970

Keywords

Head and neck cancer; quality of life; surgery; radiotherapy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Conclusion. High convergent and discriminant validity between subscales was achieved after the translation of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 into Cantonese. Most subscales were assessing distinct components of quality of life (QoL). Objectives. The study aimed to translate the EORTC QLQ-H&N35 cancer module into Cantonese and to confirm validity and reliability for use in a Hong Kong head and neck (H&N) cancer population. Subjects and methods. An ethnocentric forward-backward translation of EORTC QLQ-H&N35 was conducted by bilingual head and neck health professionals. Discrepancies were identified and problematic wording and concepts revised. Further review preceded pilot testing in 119 postoperative H&N cancer patients. Internal consistency within each subscale, convergent and discriminant validity to check the item relevance and item representativeness within and between subscales were examined. Mean and standard deviations of each subscale and single item and Cronbach's alpha coefficients for subscales were calculated. Results. Six of seven subscales achieved standard reliability (Cronbach's alpha, coefficient > 0.7). Correlation coefficients between an item and its own subscale were significantly higher than the coefficients with other subscales. Scaling success was found in all subscales. Pearson's correlation coefficient between subscales was <0.70, except between the subscales swallowing and trouble with social eating (r = 0.795), and speech problems and social contact (r = 0.754).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available