↓ Skip to main content

Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) questionnaire: application in a sample of short-term survivors

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (79th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Spanish version of the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) questionnaire: application in a sample of short-term survivors
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12955-015-0378-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Antonio Escobar, Maria del Mar Trujillo-Martín, Antonio Rueda, Elisabeth Pérez-Ruiz, Nancy E. Avis, Amaia Bilbao

Abstract

The aim of this study was to validate the Quality of Life in Adult Cancer Survivors (QLACS) in short-term Spanish cancer survivor's patients. Patients with breast, colorectal or prostate cancer that had finished their initial cancer treatment 3 years before the beginning of this study completed QLACS, WHOQOL, Short Form-36, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, EORTC-QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D. Cultural adaptation was made based on established guidelines. Reliability was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest. Convergent validity was studied by mean of Pearson's correlation coefficient. Structural validity was determined by a second-order confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and Rasch analysis was used to assess the unidimensionality of the Generic and Cancer-specific scales. Cronbach's alpha were above 0.7 in all domains and summary scales. Test-retest coefficients were 0.88 for Generic and 0.82 for Cancer-specific summary scales. QLACS generic summary scale was correlated with other generic criterion measures, SF-36 MCS (r = - 0.74) and EQ-VAS (r = - 0.63). QLACS cancer-specific scale had lower values with the same constructs. CFA provided satisfactory fit indices in all cases. The RMSEA value was 0.061 and CFI and TLI values were 0.929 and 0.925, respectively. All factor loadings were higher than 0.40 and statistically significant (P < 0.001). Generic summary scale had eight misfitting items. In the remaining 20 items, the unidimensionality was supported. Cancer Specific summary scale showed four misfitting items, the remaining showed unidimensionality. The findings support the validity and reliability of QLACS questionnaire to be used in short-term cancer survivors.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 2 3%
Unknown 76 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 13%
Student > Master 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 9%
Other 12 15%
Unknown 18 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Psychology 4 5%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 4%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 11 14%
Unknown 30 38%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 November 2022.
All research outputs
#4,127,411
of 23,049,027 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#530
of 2,188 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#50,567
of 252,940 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#4
of 28 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,049,027 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 81st percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,188 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,940 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 28 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.