• J Jason Lundy, Stephen Joel Coons, and Neil K Aaronson.
• Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium, Critical Path Institute, 1730 E River Road, Tucson, AZ, 85718-5893, USA, jlundy@c-path.org.
• Qual Life Res. 2014 Feb 1; 23 (1): 229-37.

PurposeThe objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement equivalence of an interactive voice response system (IVRS) version and the original paper-based version of the EORTC QLQ-C30.MethodsThe QLQ-C30 is a cancer-specific, health-related quality of life questionnaire consisting of nine multi-item scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, and quality of life) and six single item measures (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial problems). This study utilized a crossover design with subjects randomly assigned to one of two assessment orders: (1) paper then IVRS or (2) IVRS then paper. Equivalence between the two administration modes was established by comparing the 95% lower confidence interval (CI) of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each scale, with a critical value of 0.70.ResultsThe ICCs for the nine multi-item scales were all above 0.79, ranging from 0.791 to 0.899 (ICC 95% lower CI range 0.726-0.865) and significantly different from our threshold reliability of 0.70. The ICCs for the six single items ranged from 0.689 to 0.896 (ICC 95% lower CI range 0.611-0.888). Two of the items, insomnia and appetite loss, were not statistically different from 0.70. When considered together, the per-protocol analysis results support the equivalence of the paper and IVRS versions of the QLQ-C30 for 13 of the 15 scores.ConclusionThis analysis provides evidence that the scores obtained from the IVRS version of the QLQ-C30 are equivalent to those obtained with the original paper version except for the insomnia and appetite loss items.

26 keywords...

hide…