We investigated the hypothesis that global single-item quality-of-life indi
cators are less precise for specific treatment effects (discriminant validi
ty) than multi-item scales but similarly efficient for overall treatment co
mparisons and changes over time (responsiveness) because they reflect the s
ummation of the individual meaning and importance of various factors. Linea
r analogue self-assessment (LASA) indicators for physical well-being, mood
and coping were compared with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HA
D), the Mood Adjective Check List (MACL) and the emotional behaviour and so
cial interaction scales of the Sickness Impact Profile (SIP) in 84 patients
with early breast cancer receiving adjuvant therapy. Discriminant validity
was investigated by multitrait-multimethod correlation, responsiveness by
standardized response mean (SRM). Discriminant validity of the indicators w
as present at baseline but less under treatment. Responsiveness was demonst
rated by the expected pattern among treatments (P = 0.008). In patients wit
hout chemotherapy, the SRMs indicated moderate (0.5-0.8) to large (>0.8) im
provements in physical well-being (0.70), coping (0.92), HAD anxiety (0.89)
and depression (1.19), and MACL mental well-being (0.68). In patients with
chemotherapy for the first 3 months, small but clinically significant impr
ovements (>).2) included mood (0.38), coping (0.41), HAD axiety (0.31) and
MACL mental well-being (0.35). Patients with 6 months chemotherapy showed n
o changes. The indicators also reflected mood disorders (HAD) and marked ps
ychosocial dysfunction (SIP) at baseline and under treatment according to p
re-defined cut-off levels. Global indicators were confirmed to be efficient
for evaluating treatments overall and changes over time. The lower reliabi
lity of single as opposed to multi-item scales affects primarily their disc
riminant validity. This is less decisive in large sample sizes. (C) 2001 Ca
ncer Research Campaign.