IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-LC13 in Australians with early stage non-small cell lung cancer, CHERE Working Paper 2007/13


  • Madeleine King

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Julie Winstanley
  • Patsy Kenny

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Rosalie Viney

    () (CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney)

  • Siggi Zapart
  • Michael Boyer


Aim: To assess the validity, reliability and responsiveness of two questionnaires, the QLQ-C30 and LC-13, as measures of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in an Australian sample of people with early stage non-small cell lung cancer. Background: These two questionnaires are complementary components of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer?s (EORTC?s) modular approach to measuring HRQOL: the QLQ-C30 is the core questionnaire, containing 30 items relevant to all cancers; the QLQ-LC13 contains 13 items specific to lung cancer. Methods: These two complementary questionnaires were assessed with data obtained from 183 participants of a randomised control trial investigating the use of Positron Emission Tomography in the management of stage I or II non-small cell lung cancer. A cohort of 173 participants, were treated by surgery and then followed for two years. Participants completed HRQOL questionnaires before the PET scan, before and after surgery, one month after surgery, and then four monthly for two years. Construct validity was tested with confirmatory factor analysis and correlation analysis was used to test for convergent/divergent validity. Discriminant validity was tested by assessing the sensitivity of the scales to the effects of moving from early to late stage disease, asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic, and to the effects of age, gender and number of comorbitities. Mean differences (standardized response means (SRM)) and effect sizes were estimated for: patients with Stage 1/11 and metastatic disease; ECOG score 0 and ECOG score 1; older and younger patients; men and women; patients with no comorbidities and those with 1 or more comorbidities. Reliability was assessed in terms of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. Responsiveness to the effects of major thoracic surgery, adjuvant radiotherapy, and disease recurrence was assessed by estimating mean differences (standardized response meansSRM?s and effect sizes for patients who underwent surgery, radiotherapy and whose disease recurred, respectively. Results: The factor structure reported previously was replicated in this sample, confirming the questionnaires? construct validity. Most scales demonstrated good to excellent internal consistency (Cronbach?s alpha range: 0.86 ? 0.94); the exceptions were the cognitive function (0.68) and nausea/vomiting scales (0.67). Test-retest reliability was generally good (intraclass correlation (ICC) range: 0.70 ? 0.81); the exceptions were the pain and nausea/vomiting scales (ICC 0.56 and 0.42). Most scales were sensitive to the large effect of moving from early to later stage disease with (SRM range: 21.3 ? 54.0; effect size range:1.14 ? 1.97 (except for emotional functioning: 13.7; 0.60)). The scales were also sensitive to small effects, detecting small to moderate differences for age (large for social functioning) and comorbidities, and small differences for moving from asymptomatic to mildly symptomatic disease, and for age. Responsiveness was also confirmed with most scales responsive to the large expected effects of surgery and disease progression ( SRM range: 21.6 ? 41.4; effect size range: 0.94 ? 1.89 (emotional functioning: 5.5; 0.19)). Conclusions: The QLQ-C30 and QLQ-LC13, when used together, provide a valid, reliable and responsive measure of HRQOL in Australians with early stage non-small cell lung cancer.

Suggested Citation

  • Madeleine King & Julie Winstanley & Patsy Kenny & Rosalie Viney & Siggi Zapart & Michael Boyer, 2007. "Validity, reliability and responsiveness of the EORTC QLQ-C30 and the EORTC QLQ-LC13 in Australians with early stage non-small cell lung cancer, CHERE Working Paper 2007/13," Working Papers 2007/13, CHERE, University of Technology, Sydney.
  • Handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2007/13

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: First version December 2007, Current version December 2007
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    1. Bernard van den Berg & Han Bleichrodt & Louis Eeckhoudt, 2005. "The economic value of informal care: a study of informal caregivers' and patients' willingness to pay and willingness to accept for informal care," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(4), pages 363-376.
    2. van den Berg, Bernard & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc & van den Bos, Geertrudis A.M. & Rutten, Frans, 2006. "Economic valuation of informal care: Lessons from the application of the opportunity costs and proxy good methods," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(4), pages 835-845, February.
    3. Brownstone, David & Train, Kenneth, 1998. "Forecasting new product penetration with flexible substitution patterns," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 89(1-2), pages 109-129, November.
    4. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387, March.
    6. Hall, Jane & Viney, Rosalie & Haas, Marion & Louviere, Jordan, 2004. "Using stated preference discrete choice modeling to evaluate health care programs," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 57(9), pages 1026-1032, September.
    7. Bernard van denBerg & Werner Brouwer & Job van Exel & Marc Koopmanschap, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: the contingent valuation method applied to informal caregiving," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(2), pages 169-183.
    8. Brouwer, Werner B.F. & Exel, N. Job A. van & Berg, Bernard van den & Bos, Geertruidis A.M. van den & Koopmanschap, Marc A., 2005. "Process utility from providing informal care: the benefit of caring," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 85-99, September.
    9. van den Berg, Bernard & Al, Maiwenn & Brouwer, Werner & van Exel, Job & Koopmanschap, Marc, 2005. "Economic valuation of informal care: The conjoint measurement method applied to informal caregiving," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 61(6), pages 1342-1355, September.
    10. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    11. Sugden, Robert, 2002. "Beyond sympathy and empathy: Adam Smith's concept of fellow-feeling," Economics and Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 18(01), pages 63-87, April.
    12. Exel, Job van & Graaf, Gjalt de & Brouwer, Werner, 2007. "Care for a break? An investigation of informal caregivers' attitudes toward respite care using Q-methodology," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(2-3), pages 332-342, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. J. Lundy & Stephen Coons & Neil Aaronson, 2015. "Test–Retest Reliability of an Interactive Voice Response (IVR) Version of the EORTC QLQ-C30," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, vol. 8(2), pages 165-170, April.

    More about this item


    Questionnaires; validity; reliability; responsiveness; QOL; lung cancer;

    JEL classification:

    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:her:chewps:2007/13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Liz Chinchen). General contact details of provider: .

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.