Psychometric Characteristics of a Quality of Communication Questionnaire Assessing Communication about End-of-Life Care
Abstract
The importance of good clinician–patient communication to quality end-of-life care has been well documented yet there are no validated measures that allow patients to assess the quality of this communication. Using a sample of hospice patients (n = 83) and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) (n = 113), we evaluated the psychometric characteristics of a 13-item patient-centered, patient-report questionnaire about the quality of end-of-life communication (QOC). Our purpose was to explore the measurement structure of the QOC items to ascertain if the items represent unitary or multidimensional constructs and to describe the construct validity of the QOC score(s). Analyses included: principal component analyses to identify scales, internal consistency analyses to demonstrate reliability, and correlational and group comparisons to support construct validity. Findings support the construction of two scales: a six-item "general communication skills" scale and a seven-item, "communication about end-of-life care" scale. The two scales meet standards of scale measurement, including good factor convergence (values ≥ 0.63) and discrimination (values different ≥ 0.25), percent of variance explained (69.3%), and good internal consistency (α ≥ 0.79). The scales' construct validity is supported by significant associations (p ≤ 0.01) with items assessing overall quality of doctor communication and quality of care, number and type of end-of-life discussions, and doctor's awareness of patient's treatment preferences. The general communication skills scale correlates more strongly with the general communication items while the communication about end-of-life care scale correlates more strongly with items addressing end-of-life topics. While further validation studies are needed, this assessment of the QOC represents an important step toward providing a measure of the quality of end-of-life communication.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 65 · Cited by 195
- Authors
- Engelberg, R., Downey, L., & Curtis, J. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Palliative Medicine
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2006-10
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1086-1098
- ISSN
- 1096-6218 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7740
- OpenAlex
- W2086302600
- Cited by
- 195
- References
- 65
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 1.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
- Keywords
- communication quality, end-of-life care, clinician-patient communication, patient-reported outcomes, questionnaire validation, psychometric properties, construct validity, scale development, hospice patients, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, end-of-life discussions, treatment preferences
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Professional-Patient Relations, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Washington, Terminally Ill, Pulmonary Disease, Chronic Obstructive
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