Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Multidimensional Quality of Life Scale - Cancer Version 2 in Patients With Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the Multidimensional Quality of Life Scale - Cancer Version 2 (MQOLS-CA2) in 72 people with cancer. The results indicated that the MQOLS-CA2 has good construct validity. Factor analysis confirmed the presence of 5 factors in the MQOLS-CA2: psychological well-being, physical well-being, nutrition, symptom distress, and interpersonal well-being. The correlation between the global scores of the MQOLS-CA2 and Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short Form Health Survey was significant (r = 0.78, P =.0001), supporting the criterion validity of the MQOLS-CA2. Results of the test-retest method showed that stability coefficients for the 5 subscales of the MQOLS-CA2 ranged from 0.56 (symptom distress) to 0.91 (general physical well-being). Cronbach alpha coefficients surpassed the 0.70 criterion for all subscales, indicating good internal consistency. The acceptability rate was excellent at 96% completed questionnaires. In conclusion, the findings suggest that the Turkish version of the MQOLS-CA2 is a valid and reliable instrument that can be used in cancer research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".