↓ Skip to main content

Development of an item bank for the EORTC Role Functioning Computer Adaptive Test (EORTC RF-CAT)

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
Development of an item bank for the EORTC Role Functioning Computer Adaptive Test (EORTC RF-CAT)
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0475-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Eva-Maria Gamper, Morten Aa Petersen, Neil Aaronson, Anna Costantini, Johannes M. Giesinger, Bernhard Holzner, Georg Kemmler, Anne Oberguggenberger, Susanne Singer, Teresa Young, Mogens Groenvold

Abstract

Role functioning (RF) as a core construct of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) comprises aspects of occupational and social roles relevant for patients in all treatment phases as well as for survivors. The objective of the current study was to improve its assessment by developing a computer-adaptive test (CAT) for RF. This was part of a larger project whose objective is to develop a CAT version of the EORTC QLQ-C30 which is one of the most widely used HRQOL instruments in oncology. In accordance with EORTC guidelines, the development of the RF-CAT comprised four phases. Phase I involved the conceptualization of RF. In Phase II, a provisional list of items was defined and revised by experts in the field. In phase III, feedback was obtained from cancer patients in various countries. Phase IV comprised field testing in an international sample, calibration of the item bank, and evaluation of the psychometric performance of the RF-CAT. Phases I-III yielded a list of 12 items eligible for phase IV field-testing. The field-testing sample included 1,023 patients from Austria, Denmark, Italy, and the UK. Psychometric evaluation and item response theory analyses yielded 10 items with good psychometric properties. The resulting item bank exhibits excellent reliability (mean reliability = 0.85, median = 0.95). Using the RF-CAT may allow sample size savings from 11 % up to 50 % compared to using the QLQ-C30 RF scale. The RF-CAT item bank improves the precision and efficiency with which RF can be assessed, promoting its integration into oncology research and clinical practice.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Professor 4 9%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 10 22%
Unknown 10 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 11 24%
Psychology 5 11%
Computer Science 3 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 7%
Engineering 2 4%
Other 8 17%
Unknown 14 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 24 February 2019.
All research outputs
#9,048,703
of 15,442,255 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#793
of 1,660 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,537
of 265,661 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,442,255 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,660 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.0. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% 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 265,661 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them