Validity and reliability of the simplified Chinese patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events

• Published in: BMC cancer Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 1 - 11
• Main Authors: Yang, Shan-Shan, Chen, Lei, Liu, Ying, Lu, Hai-Jun, Huang, Bo-Jie, Lin, Ai-Hua, Sun, Ying, Ma, Jun, Xie, Fang-Yun, Mao, Yan-Ping
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 27.07.2021; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Cancer; Cancer therapies; Care and treatment; Chinese; Evaluation; Factor analysis; Hospitals; Methods; Outcome and process assessment (Health Care); Patient-reported outcomes; Patients; PRO-CTCAE; Quality of life; Quantitative psychology; Questionnaires; Reliability; Terminology; Validity; China
• DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08610-0
• ISSN: 1471-2407

Background The psychometric properties of the simplified Chinese version of the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) have not been assessed. Therefore, we aimed to assess its validity, reliability, and responsiveness. Patients and methods A Chinese version of the PRO-CTCAE and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) were distributed to 1580 patients from four cancer hospitals in China. Validity assessments included construct validity, measured by Pearson's correlations and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), and known-groups validity, measured by t-tests. The assessment of reliability included internal consistency, measured by Cronbach's É, and test-retest reliability, measured by the intraclass correlation (ICC). Responsiveness was assessed by standardized response means (SRMs). Results Data from 1555 patients who completed the instruments were analyzed. The correlations were high between PRO-CTCAE items and parallel QLQ-C30 symptom scales (r > 0.60, p < 0.001), except for fatigue (severity: r = 0.49). Moreover, CFA showed the PRO-CTCAE structure was a good fit with the data (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.046). Known-groups validity was also confirmed. Cronbach's É of all item clusters were greater than 0.9 and the median test-retest reliability coefficients of the 38 items were 0.85 (range = 0.71-0.91). In addition, the SRMs of PRO-CTCAE items were greater than 0.8, indicating strong responsiveness. Conclusion The simplified Chinese version of the PRO-CTCAE showed good reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Keywords: Patient-reported outcomes, PRO-CTCAE, Chinese, Validity, Reliability