Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Quality of Life Research 9/2012

Open Access 01-11-2012

Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30

Authors: Chad M. Gundy, Peter M. Fayers, Mogens Groenvold, Morten Aa. Petersen, Neil W. Scott, Mirjam A. G. Sprangers, Galina Velikova, Neil K. Aaronson

Published in: Quality of Life Research | Issue 9/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To investigate the statistical fit of alternative higher order models for summarizing the health-related quality of life profile generated by the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire.

Methods

A 50% random sample was drawn from a dataset of more than 9,000 pre-treatment QLQ-C30 v 3.0 questionnaires completed by cancer patients from 48 countries, differing in primary tumor site and disease stage. Building on a “standard” 14-dimensional QLQ-C30 model, confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare 6 higher order models, including a 1-dimensional (1D) model, a 2D “symptom burden and function” model, two 2D “mental/physical” models, and two models with a “formative” (or “causal”) formulation of “symptom burden,” and “function.”

Results

All of the models considered had at least an “adequate” fit to the data: the less restricted the model, the better the fit. The RMSEA fit indices for the various models ranged from 0.042 to 0.061, CFI’s 0.90–0.96, and TLI’s from 0.96 to 0.98. All chi-square tests were significant. One of the Physical/Mental models had fit indices superior to the other models considered.

Conclusions

The Physical/Mental health model had the best fit of the higher order models considered, and enjoys empirical and theoretical support in comparable instruments and applications.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRef Aaronson, N. K., Ahmedzai, S., Bergman, B., Bullinger, M., Cull, A., Duez, N. J., et al. (1993). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: A quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 85, 365–376.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Zee, B., et al. (1997). Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 6, 103–108.PubMedCrossRef Osoba, D., Aaronson, N. K., Zee, B., et al. (1997). Modification of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (version 2.0) based on content validity and reliability testing in large samples of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 6, 103–108.PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., Cull, A., Kaasa, S., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: An update. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 179–189). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers. Aaronson, N. K., Cull, A., Kaasa, S., & Sprangers, M. A. G. (1996). The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) modular approach to quality of life assessment in oncology: An update. In B. Spilker (Ed.), Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials (pp. 179–189). Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers.
4.
go back to reference Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A., et al. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N., Bjordal, K., Groenvold, M., Curran, D., Bottomley, A., et al. (2001). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual (3rd ed.). Brussels: European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer.
5.
go back to reference Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 299–331.CrossRef Raykov, T. (2004). Behavioral scale reliability and measurement invariance evaluation using latent variable modeling. Behavior Therapy, 35(2), 299–331.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B. G., Aaronson, N., Apolone, G., Bech, P., et al. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36® Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1159–1165.PubMedCrossRef Ware, J. E., Kosinski, M., Gandek, B. G., Aaronson, N., Apolone, G., Bech, P., et al. (1998). The factor structure of the SF-36® Health Survey in 10 countries: Results from the International Quality of Life Assessment (IQOLA) Project. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(11), 1159–1165.PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Guethlin, C., & Walach, H. (2007). MOS-SF 36: Structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the second-order factor structure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 15–23.CrossRef Guethlin, C., & Walach, H. (2007). MOS-SF 36: Structural equation modeling to test the construct validity of the second-order factor structure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 15–23.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Horner-Johnson, W., Suzuki, S., Krahn, J. L., Andresen, J. M., & Drum, C. E. (2010). Structure of health-related quality of life among people with and without functional limitations. Quality of Life Research, 19, 977–984.PubMedCrossRef Horner-Johnson, W., Suzuki, S., Krahn, J. L., Andresen, J. M., & Drum, C. E. (2010). Structure of health-related quality of life among people with and without functional limitations. Quality of Life Research, 19, 977–984.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Boehmer, S., & Luszczynska, A. (2006). Two kinds of items in quality of life instruments: Indicator and causal variables in the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 15(1), 131–141.PubMedCrossRef Boehmer, S., & Luszczynska, A. (2006). Two kinds of items in quality of life instruments: Indicator and causal variables in the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 15(1), 131–141.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference McLachlan, S. A., Devins, G. M., & Goodwin, P. J. (1999). Factor analysis of the psychosocial items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in metastatic breast cancer patients participating in a psychosocial intervention study. Quality of Life Research, 8(4), 311–317.PubMedCrossRef McLachlan, S. A., Devins, G. M., & Goodwin, P. J. (1999). Factor analysis of the psychosocial items of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in metastatic breast cancer patients participating in a psychosocial intervention study. Quality of Life Research, 8(4), 311–317.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Van Steen, K., Curran, D., Kramer, J., Molenberghs, G., Van Vreckem, A., Bottomley, A., et al. (2002). Multicollinearity in prognostic factor analyses using the EORTC QLQ-C30: Identification and impact on model selection. Statistics in Medicine, 21(24), 3865–3884.PubMedCrossRef Van Steen, K., Curran, D., Kramer, J., Molenberghs, G., Van Vreckem, A., Bottomley, A., et al. (2002). Multicollinearity in prognostic factor analyses using the EORTC QLQ-C30: Identification and impact on model selection. Statistics in Medicine, 21(24), 3865–3884.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Ringdal, K. (1999). Assessing the consistency of psychometric properties of the HRQoL scales within the EORTC QLQ-C30 across populations by means of the Mokken Scaling Model. Quality of Life Research, 8, 25–43.PubMedCrossRef Ringdal, K. (1999). Assessing the consistency of psychometric properties of the HRQoL scales within the EORTC QLQ-C30 across populations by means of the Mokken Scaling Model. Quality of Life Research, 8, 25–43.PubMedCrossRef
13.
go back to reference Gotay, C., Blaine, D., Haynes, S., Holup, J., & Pagano, I. (2002). Assessment of quality of life in a multicultural cancer patient population. Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 439–450.PubMedCrossRef Gotay, C., Blaine, D., Haynes, S., Holup, J., & Pagano, I. (2002). Assessment of quality of life in a multicultural cancer patient population. Psychological Assessment, 14(4), 439–450.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Pagano, I., & Gotay, C. (2006). Modeling quality of life in cancer patients as a unidimensional construct. Hawaii Medical Journal, 65, 74–82. Pagano, I., & Gotay, C. (2006). Modeling quality of life in cancer patients as a unidimensional construct. Hawaii Medical Journal, 65, 74–82.
15.
go back to reference Osoba, D., Zee, B., Pater, J., Warr, D., Kaizer, L., & Latreille, J. (1994). Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Quality of Life Research, 3(5), 353–364.PubMedCrossRef Osoba, D., Zee, B., Pater, J., Warr, D., Kaizer, L., & Latreille, J. (1994). Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the EORTC quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) in patients with breast, ovarian and lung cancer. Quality of Life Research, 3(5), 353–364.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Joreskog, K. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Joreskog, K. (1993). Testing structural equation models. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 294–316). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
go back to reference Scott, N. W., Fayers, P., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLC-C30 using differential items functioning analyses. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1103–1115.PubMedCrossRef Scott, N. W., Fayers, P., Bottomley, A., Aaronson, N., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2006). Comparing translations of the EORTC QLC-C30 using differential items functioning analyses. Quality of Life Research, 15, 1103–1115.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 115–129.PubMedCrossRef Scott, N. W., Fayers, P. M., Aaronson, N. K., Bottomley, A., de Graeff, A., Groenvold, M., et al. (2007). The use of differential item functioning analyses to identify cultural differences in responses to the EORTC QLQ-C30. Quality of Life Research, 16(1), 115–129.PubMedCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Hjermstad, M. J., Fossa, S. D., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1995). Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13, 1249–1254.PubMed Hjermstad, M. J., Fossa, S. D., Bjordal, K., & Kaasa, S. (1995). Test/retest study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality-of-Life Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 13, 1249–1254.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and application of confirmatory second order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–67.CrossRef Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and application of confirmatory second order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–67.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Koufteros, X., Babbarb, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 633–652.CrossRef Koufteros, X., Babbarb, S., & Kaighobadi, M. (2009). A paradigm for examining second-order factor models employing structural equation modeling. International Journal of Production Economics, 120, 633–652.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Arnau, R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Second order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III. Assessment. Arnau, R., & Thompson, B. (2000). Second order confirmatory factor analysis of the WAIS-III. Assessment.
23.
go back to reference Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174.PubMedCrossRef Edwards, J. R., & Bagozzi, R. P. (2000). On the nature and direction of relationships between constructs and measures. Psychological Methods, 5, 155–174.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cella, D., Chang, C., Wright, B., Von Roenn, J., & Skeel, R. (2005). Defining higher order dimensions of self-reported health: Further evidence for a two-dimensional structure. Evaluation and The Health Professions, 28(2), 122–141.CrossRef Cella, D., Chang, C., Wright, B., Von Roenn, J., & Skeel, R. (2005). Defining higher order dimensions of self-reported health: Further evidence for a two-dimensional structure. Evaluation and The Health Professions, 28(2), 122–141.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference World Health Organization (WHO). (1946). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO. World Health Organization (WHO). (1946). Constitution of the World Health Organization. Geneva: WHO.
26.
go back to reference Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J., Revicki, D., Spritzer, K., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880.PubMedCrossRef Hays, R. D., Bjorner, J., Revicki, D., Spritzer, K., & Cella, D. (2009). Development of physical and mental health summary scores from the patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) global items. Quality of Life Research, 18, 873–880.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedCrossRef Cella, D., Yount, S., Rothrock, N., Gershon, R., Cook, K., Reeve, B., et al. (2007). The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS): Progress of an NIH Roadmap cooperative group during its first two years. Medical Care, 45(5 Suppl 1), S3–S11.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Wilson, I., & Cleary, P. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 59–65.PubMedCrossRef Wilson, I., & Cleary, P. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health related quality of life. A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 59–65.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Sousa, K. H., & Kwok, O. M. (2006). Putting Wilson and Cleary to the test: Analysis of a HRQOL conceptual model using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 15(4), 725–737.PubMedCrossRef Sousa, K. H., & Kwok, O. M. (2006). Putting Wilson and Cleary to the test: Analysis of a HRQOL conceptual model using structural equation modeling. Quality of Life Research, 15(4), 725–737.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 139–150.PubMedCrossRef Fayers, P. M., & Hand, D. J. (1997). Factor analysis, causal indicators and quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 6(2), 139–150.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis, and interpretation. New York: Wiley. Fayers, P. M., & Machin, D. (2000). Quality of life: Assessment, analysis, and interpretation. New York: Wiley.
32.
go back to reference Fayers, P. M., Hand, D. J., Bjordal, K., & Groenvold, M. (1997). Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 6(5), 393–406.PubMedCrossRef Fayers, P. M., Hand, D. J., Bjordal, K., & Groenvold, M. (1997). Causal indicators in quality of life research. Quality of Life Research, 6(5), 393–406.PubMedCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Fayers, P., & Hand, D. J. (2002). Causal variables, indicator variables, and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 165(2), 233–261.CrossRef Fayers, P., & Hand, D. J. (2002). Causal variables, indicator variables, and measurement scales: An example from quality of life. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, 165(2), 233–261.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Howell, R., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205–218.PubMedCrossRef Howell, R., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. (2007). Reconsidering formative measurement. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 205–218.PubMedCrossRef
35.
go back to reference Howell, R., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. (2007). Is formative measurement really measurement? Reply to Bollen (2007) and Bagozzi (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2), 238–245.CrossRef Howell, R., Breivik, E., & Wilcox, J. (2007). Is formative measurement really measurement? Reply to Bollen (2007) and Bagozzi (2007). Psychological Methods, 12(2), 238–245.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203–1218.CrossRef Diamantopoulos, A., Riefler, P., & Roth, K. (2008). Advancing formative measurement models. Journal of Business Research, 61, 1203–1218.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Jarvis, C. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioural and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.PubMedCrossRef MacKenzie, S., Podsakoff, P., & Jarvis, C. (2005). The problem of measurement model misspecification in behavioural and organizational research and some recommended solutions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(4), 710–730.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. McDonald, R. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
go back to reference Hayduk, L. (1996). LISREL: Issues, debates, and strategies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press. Hayduk, L. (1996). LISREL: Issues, debates, and strategies. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press.
41.
go back to reference Flora, D., & Curran, P. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.PubMedCrossRef Flora, D., & Curran, P. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491.PubMedCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2007). Computationally efficient estimation of multilevel high-dimensional latent variable models. In Proceedings of the 2007 JSM meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Section on Statistics in Epidemiology (pp. 2531–2535). Asparouhov, T., & Muthen, B. (2007). Computationally efficient estimation of multilevel high-dimensional latent variable models. In Proceedings of the 2007 JSM meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Section on Statistics in Epidemiology (pp. 2531–2535).
43.
go back to reference Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.CrossRef Barrett, P. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824.CrossRef
44.
go back to reference Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! Testing! One, two, three—testing the theory in structural equation models! Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 841–850.CrossRef Hayduk, L., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., & Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! Testing! One, two, three—testing the theory in structural equation models! Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 841–850.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference McIntosh, C. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859–867.CrossRef McIntosh, C. (2007). Rethinking fit assessment in structural equation modelling: A commentary and elaboration on Barrett (2007). Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 859–867.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Bentler, P. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829.CrossRef Bentler, P. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 825–829.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Mulaik, S. (2007). There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 883–891.CrossRef Mulaik, S. (2007). There is a place for approximate fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 883–891.CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Millsap, R. (2007). Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 875–881.CrossRef Millsap, R. (2007). Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 875–881.CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Jackson, D., Gillaspy, J., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6–23.PubMedCrossRef Jackson, D., Gillaspy, J., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6–23.PubMedCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.CrossRef
51.
go back to reference Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. Bollen & J. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
52.
go back to reference Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRef Cheung, G., & Rensvold, R. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.CrossRef
54.
go back to reference Satora, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.CrossRef Satora, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507–514.CrossRef
57.
go back to reference Asparouhov, T. (2006). General multilevel modeling with sampling weights. Communications in statistics. Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460.CrossRef Asparouhov, T. (2006). General multilevel modeling with sampling weights. Communications in statistics. Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460.CrossRef
58.
go back to reference Stapelton, L. (2006). An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(28), 58. Stapelton, L. (2006). An assessment of practical solutions for structural equation modeling with complex sample data. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(28), 58.
59.
go back to reference Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén. Muthen, L., & Muthen, B. (2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
60.
go back to reference Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.CrossRef Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s information criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical extensions. Psychometrika, 52, 345–370.CrossRef
61.
go back to reference Landsheer, J. A. (2010). The specification of causal models with Tetrad IV: A review. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(4), 703–711.CrossRef Landsheer, J. A. (2010). The specification of causal models with Tetrad IV: A review. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(4), 703–711.CrossRef
62.
go back to reference Liu, L. (2009). Technology acceptance model: A replicated test using TETRAD. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 24(12), 1230–1242.CrossRef Liu, L. (2009). Technology acceptance model: A replicated test using TETRAD. International Journal of Intelligent Systems, 24(12), 1230–1242.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparing higher order models for the EORTC QLQ-C30
Authors
Chad M. Gundy
Peter M. Fayers
Mogens Groenvold
Morten Aa. Petersen
Neil W. Scott
Mirjam A. G. Sprangers
Galina Velikova
Neil K. Aaronson
Publication date
01-11-2012
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Quality of Life Research / Issue 9/2012
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Electronic ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0082-6

Other articles of this Issue 9/2012

Quality of Life Research 9/2012 Go to the issue