Premium
Development and psychometric evaluation of the Q uality of P atient‐ C entered C ancer C are measure with hematological cancer survivors
Author(s) -
Tzelepis Flora,
SansonFisher Robert W.,
Hall Alix E.,
Carey Mariko L.,
Paul Christine L.,
ClintonMcHarg Tara
Publication year - 2015
Publication title -
cancer
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 3.052
H-Index - 304
eISSN - 1097-0142
pISSN - 0008-543X
DOI - 10.1002/cncr.29384
Subject(s) - medicine , cronbach's alpha , discriminant validity , construct validity , exploratory factor analysis , cancer , ceiling effect , reliability (semiconductor) , psychometrics , clinical psychology , test (biology) , family medicine , physical therapy , internal consistency , alternative medicine , pathology , paleontology , power (physics) , physics , quantum mechanics , biology
BACKGROUND The Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended 6 objectives for achieving patient‐centered care. However, most patient‐reported outcome measures developed with cancer populations fail to address all 6 patient‐centeredness dimensions. The Quality of Patient‐Centered Cancer Care (QPCCC) measure was developed on the basis of IOM recommendations, and the measure's validity, reliability, and floor and ceiling effects were examined. METHODS The development of the QPCCC measure included interviews with hematological cancer survivors and feedback from hematologists and cancer patients. To evaluate the measure's psychometric properties, hematological cancer survivors were identified via 2 cancer registries and were mailed the QPCCC measure. To examine test‐retest reliability, a second QPCCC measure was mailed to survivors 7 to 14 days after they had returned the first measure. RESULTS Overall, 545 hematological cancer survivors completed the 48‐item QPCCC measure. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a 10‐factor structure with factor loadings > 0.40. The subscales were labeled Treatment Delivery, Treatment Decision Making, Coordinated and Integrated Care, Emotional Support, Timely Care, Follow‐Up Care, Respectful Communication, Patient Preferences and Values, Cancer Information, and Equitable Care. The QPCCC measure demonstrated acceptable internal consistency for all subscales (Cronbach's α = .73‐.94). When test‐retest reliability was assessed, 4 items demonstrated substantial agreement (κ > 0.60), whereas 40 items showed moderate agreement (κ = 0.41‐0.60). Ceiling effects were present for 8 subscales. CONCLUSIONS The QPCCC measure has acceptable face and content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency. However, the measure's discriminant validity and test‐retest reliability could be improved. The QPCCC measure could be used to improve patient‐centered cancer care. Cancer 2015;121:2383–2392. © 2015 American Cancer Society .