Measuring quality of life of Chinese cancer patients - A validation of theChinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale
Clm. Yu et al., Measuring quality of life of Chinese cancer patients - A validation of theChinese version of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale, CANCER, 88(7), 2000, pp. 1715-1727
BACKGROUND. Few cancer specific quality-of-life (QoL) measures from the Wes
t have been translated for use with Chinese-speaking patients, and no subst
antial validation of these translations with adequately large cohorts has b
een published previously, to the authors' knowledge.The Functional Assessme
nt of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) is a well-validated QoL instrument th
at is specific to cancer patients. The scale was translated into Chinese an
d the psychometric properties of this translated scale (FACT-G [Ch]) were t
ested with a Chinese sample in Hong Kong, China.
METHODS. A total of 1262 Chinese cancer patients were selected in 3 samples
from 5 Hong Kong regional hospitals. Quantitative and qualitative data wer
e used to assess the cultural equivalence, factor structure, reliability, a
nd validity of the FACT-G (Ch).
RESULTS. Focus group discussions indicated that the FACT-G was seen as cove
ring QoL domains identified as important and relevant to Chinese cancer pat
ients, though in some respects it was seen as having limited scope in this
sample. Psychometrically, the factor structure of the FACT-G deviated from
that of the original work The FACT-G (Ch) had acceptable reliability (Cronb
ach alpha 0.85). The convergent validity of the FACT-G (Ch) with a generic
QoL measure (WHO-QOL-BREF[HK]) was 0.72 (P < 0.001), and divergent validity
showed low correlations of less than 0.15 (P < 0.05) with non-gel measures
.
CONCLUSIONS. Focus group data indicated that the FACT-G translation into Ch
inese was seen as a conceptually relevant and moderately sufficient QoL mea
sure. Psychometrically, the instrument had acceptable properties, but conce
ptual differences from the original version were suggested. Although more w
ork is needed to increase its adequacy, the translated scale has reasonable
utility for use with Chinese populations in clinical settings. (C) 2000 Am
erican Cancer Society.