Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, SF‐36, FACT‐G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health

In line with the World Health Organizations' health definition, patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measures frequently cover aspects of social health. Our study aimed to evaluate the role functioning (RF) and social functioning (SF) contents assessed by PRO measures commonly used in cancer patients.

[1]  J. Giesinger,et al.  Patient‐reported outcome measures for emotional functioning in cancer patients: Content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, FACT‐G, HADS, SF‐36, PRO‐CTCAE, and PROMIS instruments , 2023, Psycho-oncology.

[2]  M. Groenvold,et al.  Patient-reported outcome measures for physical function in cancer patients: content comparison of the EORTC CAT Core, EORTC QLQ-C30, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS measures using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health , 2023, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[3]  G. Bērziņa,et al.  Comparison of content and psychometric properties for assessment tools used for brain tumor patients: a scoping review , 2021, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[4]  A. Kaat,et al.  PROsetta: An R Package for Linking Patient-Reported Outcome Measures , 2021, Applied psychological measurement.

[5]  D. Cella,et al.  Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review. , 2021, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[6]  P. Fayers,et al.  Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes That Are Most Frequently Detected in Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients With Solid Tumors: A Pooled Analysis of 229 Trials. , 2020, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[7]  N. Aaronson,et al.  International validation of the EORTC CAT Core: a new adaptive instrument for measuring core quality of life domains in cancer , 2020, Quality of Life Research.

[8]  D. Cella,et al.  A comparison of computer adaptive tests (CATs) and short forms in terms of accuracy and number of items administrated using PROMIS profile , 2019, Quality of Life Research.

[9]  A. Cieza,et al.  Refinements of the ICF Linking Rules to strengthen their potential for establishing comparability of health information , 2019, Disability and rehabilitation.

[10]  P. Fayers,et al.  The EORTC CAT Core-The computer adaptive version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire. , 2018, European journal of cancer.

[11]  L. B. Mokkink,et al.  COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study , 2018, Quality of Life Research.

[12]  N. Aaronson,et al.  Development of an item bank for the EORTC Role Functioning Computer Adaptive Test (EORTC RF-CAT) , 2016, Health and Quality of Life Outcomes.

[13]  C. Forrest,et al.  Mapping the content of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) using the International Classification of Functioning, Health and Disability , 2014, Quality of Life Research.

[14]  D. Cella,et al.  New English and Spanish social health measures will facilitate evaluating health determinants. , 2014, Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association.

[15]  Hua-Hua Chang,et al.  Content-balancing strategy in bifactor computerized adaptive patient-reported outcome measurement , 2013, Quality of Life Research.

[16]  P. Fayers,et al.  Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30 , 2011, Quality of Life Research.

[17]  P. Butow,et al.  Choosing between the EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G for measuring health-related quality of life in cancer clinical research: issues, evidence and recommendations. , 2011, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[18]  D. Cella,et al.  Measuring social health in the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS): item bank development and testing , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[19]  J. Bjorner,et al.  Health and role functioning: the use of focus groups in the development of an item bank , 2010, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  E. Badley.  Enhancing the conceptual clarity of the activity and participation components of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. , 2008, Social science & medicine.

[21]  S. Rogers,et al.  Content comparison of quality of life questionnaires used in head and neck cancer based on the international classification of functioning, disability and health: a systematic review , 2008, European Archives of Oto-Rhino-Laryngology.

[22]  Nan Rothrock,et al.  Evaluation of Item Candidates: The PROMIS Qualitative Item Review , 2007, Medical care.

[23]  D. Cella,et al.  Equating EORTC QLQ-C30 and FACT-G scores and its use in oncological research. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[24]  Nenad Kostanjsek,et al.  ICF linking rules: an update based on lessons learned. , 2005, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[25]  D. Alderson,et al.  A prospective comparison of quality of life measures for patients with esophageal cancer , 2005, Quality of Life Research.

[26]  R. Brennan,et al.  Test Equating, Scaling, and Linking: Methods and Practices , 2004 .

[27]  Thomas Ewert,et al.  Linking health-status measurements to the international classification of functioning, disability and health. , 2002, Journal of rehabilitation medicine.

[28]  John E. Ware,et al.  SF-36 Health Survey Update , 2000, Spine.

[29]  D. R. Sewell,et al.  Assessing levels of adaptive functioning: The Role Functioning Scale , 1993, Community Mental Health Journal.

[30]  D. Osoba,et al.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. , 1993, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[31]  D. Tulsky,et al.  The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure. , 1993, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[32]  N. Aaronson.  Methodologic issues in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients , 1991, Cancer.

[33]  C. Moinpour,et al.  Quality of life end points in cancer clinical trials: review and recommendations. , 1989, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[34]  A. Blenkinsop,et al.  World Health , 1957, Nature.

[35]  E. Lidington,et al.  Content comparison of the EORTC CAT-Core, SF-36, FACT-G, and PROMIS role and social functioning measures based on the International Classi�cation of Functioning, Disability and Health , 2023 .

[36]  P. Fayers,et al.  Replication and validation of higher order models demonstrated that a summary score for the EORTC QLQ-C30 is robust. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[37]  B. Reeve,et al.  International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the draft European Medicines Agency reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[38]  F. Roila,et al.  Quality of life as a primary end point in oncology. , 2001, Annals of Oncology.

[39]  M Bosc,et al.  Assessment of social functioning in depression. , 2000, Comprehensive psychiatry.

[40]  S. Saxena,et al.  The World Health Organization Quality of Life assessment (WHOQOL): position paper from the World Health Organization. , 1995, Social science & medicine.

[41]  Ware J.E.Jr.,et al.  THE MOS 36- ITEM SHORT FORM HEALTH SURVEY (SF- 36) CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND ITEM SELECTION , 1992 .

[42]  S. P. Akpabio.  World Health Organisation , 1983, British Dental Journal.