Cited by 280Cancer survivorship and careOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life

Reliability and validity of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-ovarian

Basen-Engquist, Karen, Bodurka-Bevers, Diane, Fitzgerald, Mary A., Webster, Kimberly, Cella, David, Hu, Shaohua, Gershenson, David M.·2001·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: To report the reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Ovarian (FACT-O) in a consecutive series of outpatients with epithelial ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Two hundred thirty-two ovarian cancer patients attending an outpatient gynecologic oncology clinic completed questionnaires at baseline. The patients' FACT-O scores were compared with their performance status, disease stage, treatment status, and other factors hypothesized to be related to quality of life. Patients received a second questionnaire either one week after baseline to assess the instrument's test-retest reliability and/or two months after baseline to evaluate its sensitivity to change in performance status. RESULTS: Internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the FACT-O were adequate. Overall, the scales correlated with other measures as expected; all correlations were in the hypothesized direction. Patients with advanced disease, poor performance status, and who were receiving active treatment had lower scores on physical, functional, and ovarian cancer-specific scales. The total FACT-O and emotional well-being scores were lower for patients with poor performance status and patients in active treatment. The FACT-O total and all subscale scores except emotional well-being were sensitive to decreases in performance status. CONCLUSION: Overall, the FACT-O provides a reliable and valid assessment of the quality of life of women with ovarian cancer, and is appropriate as a brief quality of life assessment in clinical trials and descriptive studies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2001.19.6.1809

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 28 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Basen-Engquist, K., Bodurka-Bevers, D., Fitzgerald, M. A., Webster, K., Cella, D., Hu, S., & Gershenson, D. M.
Affiliations
  • Northwestern University (US)
  • From the University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX; and Center on Outcomes, Research and Education, Evanston Northwestern Healthcare and Northwestern University, Evanston, IL.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2001-03-15
Volume
19
Issue
6
Pages
1809-1817
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W2244770355
Cited by
280
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 11 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 14
FWCI
2.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Reproductive Medicine › Ovarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Keywords
ovarian cancer, quality of life, test-retest reliability, internal consistency, performance status, sensitivity to change, emotional well-being, functional status, instrument validation
MeSH terms
Activities of Daily Living, Adult, Aged, Clinical Trials as Topic, Emotions, Family Health, Female, Health Status, Humans, Middle Aged, Neoplasm Staging, Ovarian Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Sensitivity and Specificity, Social Support, Reproducibility of Results, Treatment Outcome

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