TY - JOUR
T1 - The functional assessment of cancer therapy scale
T2 - Development and validation of the general measure
AU - Cella, David F.
AU - Tulsky, David S.
AU - Gray, George
AU - Sarafian, Bernie
AU - Linn, Elizabeth
AU - Bonomi, Amy
AU - Silberman, Margaret
AU - Yellen, Suzanne B.
AU - Winicour, Patsy
AU - Brannon, Judy
AU - Eckberg, Karen
AU - Lloyd, Stephen
AU - Purl, Sandy
AU - Blendowski, Carol
AU - Goodman, Michelle
AU - Barnicle, Madeline
AU - Stewart, Irene
AU - McHale, Marnie
AU - Bonomi, Philip
AU - Kaplan, Edward
AU - Taylor IV, Samuel
AU - Thomas, Charles R.
AU - Harris, Jules
PY - 1993
Y1 - 1993
N2 - Purpose: We developed and validated a brief, yet sensitive, 33-item general cancer quality-of-life (QL) measure for evaluating patients receiving cancer treatment, called the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale. Methods and Results: The five-phase validation process involved 854 patients with cancer and 15 oncology specialists. The initial pool of 370 overlapping items for breast, lung, and colorectal cancer was generated by open-ended interview with patients experienced with the symptoms of cancer and oncology professionals. Using preselected criteria, items were reduced to a 38-item general version. Factor and scaling analyses of these 38 items on 545 patients with mixed cancer diagnoses resulted in the 28-item FACT-general (FACT-G, version 2). In addition to a total score, this version produces subscale scores for physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being, as well as satisfaction with the treatment relationship. Coefficients of reliability and validity were uniformly high. The scale's ability to discriminate patients on the basis of stage of disease, performance status rating (PSR), and hospitalization status supports its sensitivity. It has also demonstrated sensitivity to change over time. Finally, the validity of measuring separate areas, or dimensions, of QL was supported by the differential responsiveness of subscales when applied to groups known to differ along the dimensions of physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being. Conclusion: The FACT-G meets or exceeds all requirements for use in oncology clinical trials, including ease of administration, brevity, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. Selecting it for a clinical trial adds the capability to assess the relative weight of various aspects of QL from the patient's perspective.
AB - Purpose: We developed and validated a brief, yet sensitive, 33-item general cancer quality-of-life (QL) measure for evaluating patients receiving cancer treatment, called the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) scale. Methods and Results: The five-phase validation process involved 854 patients with cancer and 15 oncology specialists. The initial pool of 370 overlapping items for breast, lung, and colorectal cancer was generated by open-ended interview with patients experienced with the symptoms of cancer and oncology professionals. Using preselected criteria, items were reduced to a 38-item general version. Factor and scaling analyses of these 38 items on 545 patients with mixed cancer diagnoses resulted in the 28-item FACT-general (FACT-G, version 2). In addition to a total score, this version produces subscale scores for physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being, as well as satisfaction with the treatment relationship. Coefficients of reliability and validity were uniformly high. The scale's ability to discriminate patients on the basis of stage of disease, performance status rating (PSR), and hospitalization status supports its sensitivity. It has also demonstrated sensitivity to change over time. Finally, the validity of measuring separate areas, or dimensions, of QL was supported by the differential responsiveness of subscales when applied to groups known to differ along the dimensions of physical, functional, social, and emotional well-being. Conclusion: The FACT-G meets or exceeds all requirements for use in oncology clinical trials, including ease of administration, brevity, reliability, validity, and responsiveness to clinical change. Selecting it for a clinical trial adds the capability to assess the relative weight of various aspects of QL from the patient's perspective.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0027407786&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0027407786&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570
DO - 10.1200/JCO.1993.11.3.570
M3 - Article
C2 - 8445433
AN - SCOPUS:0027407786
SN - 0732-183X
VL - 11
SP - 570
EP - 579
JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology
JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology
IS - 3
ER -