Comparison of Three Shortened Questionnaires for Assessment of Quality of Life in Advanced Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Quality of life (QoL) assessment questionnaires can be burdensome to advanced cancer patients, thus necessitating the need for shorter assessment instruments than traditionally available. We compare three shortened QoL questionnaires in regards to their characteristics, validity, and reliability. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify studies that employed or discussed three abridged QoL questionnaires: the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Core 15-Palliative Care (EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General-7 (FACT-G7), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Palliative Care-14 (FACIT-PAL-14). Articles that discussed questionnaire length, intended use, scoring procedure, and validation were included. RESULTS: The 7-item FACT-G7 is the shortest instrument, whereas the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACIT-PAL-14 contain 14 and 15 items, respectively. All three questionnaires have similar recall period, item organization, and subscale components. Designed as core questionnaires, all three maintain content and concurrent validity of their unabridged original questionnaires. Both the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACT-G7 demonstrate good internal consistency and reliability, with Cronbach's α ≥0.7 deemed acceptable. The developmental study for the FACIT-PAL-14 was published in 2013 and subsequent validation studies are not yet available. CONCLUSION: The EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL and the FACT-G7 were found to be reliable and appropriate for assessing health-related QoL issues-the former for palliative cancer patients and the latter for advanced cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Conceptually, the FACIT-PAL-14 holds promise to cover social and emotional support issues that are not completely addressed by the other two questionnaires; however, further validation is needed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".