↓ Skip to main content

Reliability analysis of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Leukemia (FACT-Leu) scale based on multivariate generalizability theory

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reliability analysis of the Chinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Leukemia (FACT-Leu) scale based on multivariate generalizability theory
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0664-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Qiong Meng, Zheng Yang, Yang Wu, Yuanyuan Xiao, Xuezhong Gu, Meixia Zhang, Chonghua Wan, Xiaosong Li

Abstract

The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu) scale, a leukemia-specific instrument for determining the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in patients with leukemia, had been developed and validated, but there have been no reports on the development of a simplified Chinese version of this scale. This is a new exploration to analyze the reliability of the HRQOL measurement using multivariate generalizability theory (MGT). This study aimed to develop a Chinese version of the FACT-Leu scale and evaluate its reliability using MGT to provide evidence to support the revision and improvement of this scale. The Chinese version of the FACT-Leu scale was developed by four steps: forward translation, backward translation, cultural adaptation and pilot-testing. The HRQOL was measured for eligible inpatients with leukemia using this scale to provide data. A single-facet multivariate Generalizability Study (G-study) design was demonstrated to estimate the variance-covariance components and then several Decision Studies (D-studies) with varying numbers of items were analyzed to obtain reliability coefficients and to understand how much the measurement reliability could be vary as the number of items in MGT changes. One-hundred and one eligible inpatients diagnosed with leukemia were recruited and completed the HRQOL measurement at the time of admission to the hospital. In the G-study, the variation component of the patient-item interaction was largest while the variation component of the item was the smallest for the four of five domains, except for the leukemia-specific (LEUS) domain. In the D-study, at the level of domain, the generalizability coefficients (G) and the indexes of dependability (Ф) for four of the five domains were approximately equal to or greater than 0.80 except for the Emotional Well-being (EWB) domain (>0.70 but <0.80). For the overall scale, the composite G and composite Ф coefficients were greater than 0.90. Based on the G coefficient and Ф coefficient, two decision options for revising this scale considering the number of items were obtained: one is a 37-item version while the other is a 45-item version. The Chinese version of the FACT-Leu scale has good reliability as a whole based on the results of MGT and the implementation of MGT could lead to more informed decisions in complex questionnaire design and improvement.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 5 17%
Other 3 10%
Student > Bachelor 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Psychology 4 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 7%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 May 2017.
All research outputs
#17,890,958
of 22,968,808 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,510
of 2,184 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,996
of 310,942 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#46
of 73 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,968,808 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,184 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 310,942 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 73 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.