CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 42Cancer survivorship and careHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealth Education and Validation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the FACT-L for measuring quality of life in patients with lung cancer

Wan, Chonghua, Zhang, Canzhen, Cai, Le, Tu, Xin, Feng, Changyong, Luo, Jiahong, Zhang, Xiaoqin·2007·Lung Cancer
DOI 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.01.004
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A Simplified Chinese version of the FACT-L was evaluated using responses from 181 patients with lung cancer in China by assessing the construct, discriminative and criterion-related validity, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness as measured by score changes of the scales. Correlation and factor analysis among domains and items showed good construct validity, correlation analysis of domain scores between FACT-L and Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients-Lung cancer (QLICP-LU) displayed good criterion-related validity, and comparison of two age groups demonstrated discriminative validity. Test-retest reliability and Internal consistency coefficients for all domains were greater than 0.75 with the exception of the domain of additional concerns (alpha=0.56). Score changes over time were statistically significant in the overall scale and all domains: standardized response mean (SRM) for physical well-being is 1.56, social/ family well-being 0.70, emotional well-being 0.93, and functioning well-being 1.51. Therefore, the Simplified Chinese version of FACT-L can be used to measure quality of life (QOL) for Chinese patients with lung cancer with good validity, reliability, and responsiveness.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.01.004

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Wan, 2003, Study on the System of Quality of Life Instruments for Cancer Patients—QLICP, Chin J Behav Med Sci, 12, 341

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Wan, C., Zhang, C., Cai, L., Tu, X., Feng, C., Luo, J., & Zhang, X.
Affiliations
  • Kunming Medical University (CN)
  • University of Rochester (US)
Corresponding author
Wan, Chonghua
ORCID
Venue
Lung Cancer
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2007-06
Volume
56
Issue
3
Pages
415-421
ISSN
0169-5002 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.lungcan.2007.01.004
OpenAlex
W1978617033
Cited by
42
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Lung Cancer (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Northwestern University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Research and Theory › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
FACT-L, quality of life, Chinese translation, psychometric validation, construct validity, criterion validity, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, responsiveness, Chinese patients
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, China, Female, Humans, Lung Neoplasms, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Asian People

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review