Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Cancer
Published in: BMC Cancer 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Research article

The quality of working life questionnaire for cancer survivors (QWLQ-CS): factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility

Authors: Merel de Jong, Sietske J. Tamminga, Robert J. J. van Es, Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen, Angela G. E. M. de Boer

Published in: BMC Cancer | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To assess the factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility of the Quality of Working Life Questionnaire for Cancer Survivors (QWLQ-CS).

Methods

An Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was performed on QWLQ-CS data from a sample of employed cancer survivors to establish the final number of items and factorial structure of the QWLQ-CS. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. In a second sample of (self-)employed cancer survivors, construct validity was tested by convergent validity (correlations of QWLQ-CS with construct-related questionnaires), and discriminative validity (difference in QWLQ-CS scores between cancer survivors and employed people without cancer). In a subgroup of stable cancer survivors subtracted from the second sample, reproducibility was evaluated by Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Standard Error of Measurement (SEM).

Results

EFA on QWLQ-CS data of 302 cancer survivors resulted in 23 items and five factors. The internal consistency of the QWLQ-CS was Cronbach’s α = 0.91. Convergent validity on data of 130 cancer survivors resulted in r = 0.61–0.70. QWLQ-CS scores of these cancer survivors statistically differed (p = 0.04) from employed people without cancer (N = 45). Reproducibility of QWLQ-CS data from 87 cancer survivors demonstrated an ICC of 0.84 and a SEM of 9.59.

Conclusions

The five-factor QWLQ-CS with 23 items and adequate internal consistency, construct validity, and reproducibility at group level can be used in clinical and occupational healthcare, and research settings.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M, Dikshit R, Eser S, Mathers C, et al. (2013). GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase no. 11 [internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2013. http://​globocan.​iarc.​fr. Accessed 25 April 2016.
2.
3.
Wells M, Amir Z, Cox T, Eva G, Greenfield D, Hubbard G, et al. Time to act: the challenges of working during and after cancer, initiatives in research and practice. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2014;18:1–2.CrossRefPubMed
4.
de Boer AG, Taskila T, Ojajarvi A, van Dijk FJ, Verbeek JH. Cancer survivors and unemployment: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. JAMA. 2009;301:753–62.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Duijts SF, van Egmond MP, Spelten E, van Muijen P, Anema JR, van der Beek AJ. Physical and psychosocial problems in cancer survivors beyond return to work: a systematic review. Psychooncology. 2014;23:481–92.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Moskowitz MC, Todd BL, Chen R, Feuerstein M. Function and friction at work: a multidimensional analysis of work outcomes in cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv. 2014;8:173–82.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Steiner JF, Cavender TA, Nowels CT, Beaty BL, Bradley CJ, Fairclough DL, et al. The impact of physical and psychosocial factors on work characteristics after cancer. Psychooncology. 2008;17:138–47.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Mehnert A, de Boer A, Feuerstein M. Employment challenges for cancer survivors. Cancer. 2013;119(Suppl 11):2151–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Wells M, Williams B, Firnigl D, Lang H, Coyle J, Kroll T, et al. Supporting 'work-related goals' rather than 'return to work' after cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of 25 qualitative studies. Psychooncology. 2013;22:1208–19.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Pryce J, Munir F, Haslam C. Cancer survivorship and work: symptoms, supervisor response, co-worker disclosure and work adjustment. J Occup Rehabil. 2007;17:83–92.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Amir Z, Wynn P, Whitaker S, Luker K. Cancer survivorship and return to work: UK occupational physician experience. Occup Med. 2009;59:390–6.CrossRef
12.
De Blasi G, Bouteyre E, Bretteville J, Boucher L, Rollin L. Multidisciplinary department of “return to work after a cancer”: a French experience of support groups for vocational rehabilitation. J Psychosoc Oncol. 2014;32:74–93.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Nugent BD, Weimer J, Choi CJ, Bradley CJ, Bender CM, Ryan CM, et al. Work productivity and neuropsychological function in persons with skull base tumors. Neurooncol Pract. 2014;1:106–13.PubMedPubMedCentral
14.
Kim YA, Yun YH, Chang YJ, Lee J, Kim MS, Lee HS, et al. Employment status and work-related difficulties in lung cancer survivors compared with the general population. Ann Surg. 2014;259:569–75.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Tamminga SJ, de Boer AG, Verbeek JH, Frings-Dresen MH. Breast cancer survivors' views of factors that influence the return-to-work process--a qualitative study. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012;38:144–54.CrossRefPubMed
16.
de Jong M, Tamminga SJ, de Boer AG, Frings-Dresen MH. The quality of working life questionnaire for cancer survivors (QWLQ-CS): a pre-test study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:194.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Chan KW, Wyatt TA. Quality of work life: a study of employees in shanghai, China. Asia Pacific. Bus Rev. 2007;13:501–17.
18.
19.
Ventegodt S, Andersen NJ, Kandel I, Enevoldsen L, Merrick J. Scientific research in the quality of working-life (QWL): generic measuring of the global working life quality with the SEQWL questionnaire. Int J Disabil Hum Dev. 2008;7:201–17.
20.
van Laar D, Edwards JA, Easton S. The work-related quality of life scale for healthcare workers. J Adv Nurs. 2007;60:325–33.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Murphy L. Job stress research at NIOSH: 1972-2002. In: Perrewé PL, Ganster DC, editors. Research in occupational stress and well-being: historical and current perspectives on stress and health, vol. 2. Kidlington, Oxford: Emerald Group Publishing Limited; 2002. p. 1–55.CrossRef
22.
Martel JP, Dupuis G. Quality of work life: theoretical and methodological problems, and presentation of a new model and measuring instrument. Soc Indic Res. 2006;77:333–68.CrossRef
23.
Brooks BA, Anderson MA. Defining quality of nursing work life. Nurs Econ. 2005;23:319–26.PubMed
24.
de Jong M, Tamminga SJ, de Boer AG, Frings-Dresen MH. Quality of working life of cancer survivors: development of a cancer-specific questionnaire. J Cancer Surviv. 2016;10:394–405.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
de Jong M, de Boer AG, Tamminga SJ, Frings-Dresen MH. Quality of working life issues of employees with a chronic physical disease: a systematic review. J Occup Rehabil. 2015;25:182–96.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Stratford PW, Knol DL, et al. The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: an international Delphi study. Qual Life Res. 2010;19:539–49.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. New York: Oxford University Press; 2003.
29.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL. Measurement in medicine. A practical guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2011.CrossRef
30.
Field A. Discovering statistics using spss. 2nd ed. London, UK: Sage Publications Ltd.; 2005.
31.
Fayers PM, Machin D. Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. 2nd ed. UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.; 2007.CrossRef
32.
33.
Hayton JC, Allen DG, Scarpello V. Factor retention decisions in exploratory factor analysis: a tutorial on parallel analysis. Organ Res Methods. 2004;7:191–205.CrossRef
34.
Kristensen TS, Hannerz H, Hogh A, Borg V. The Copenhagen psychosocial questionnaire--a tool for the assessment and improvement of the psychosocial work environment. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2005;31:438–49.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Lagerveld SE, Blonk RWB, Brenninkmeijer V, Schaufeli WB. Return to work among employees with mental health problems: development and validation of a self-efficacy questionnaire. Work Stress. 2010;24:359–75.CrossRef
36.
Ware JE, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care. 1992;30:473–83.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Aaronson NK, Acquadro C, Alonso J, Apolone G, Bucquet D, Bullinger M, et al. International quality of life assessment (IQOLA) project. Qual Life Res.1:349–51.
38.
Aaronson NK, Muller M, Cohen PD, Essink-Bot ML, Fekkes M, Sanderman R, et al. Translation, validation, and norming of the Dutch language version of the SF-36 health survey in community and chronic disease populations. J Clin Epidemiol. 1998;51:1055–68.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Brazier JE, Harper R, Jones NM, O'Cathain A, Thomas KJ, Usherwood T, et al. Validating the SF-36 health survey questionnaire: new outcome measure for primary care. BMJ. 1992;305:160–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
de Boer AG, van Lanschot JJ, Stalmeier PF, van Sandick JW, Hulscher JB, de Haes JC, et al. Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Qual Life Res. 2004;13:311–20.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Pickard AS, Neary MP, Cella D. Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D utility and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
42.
Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, et al. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42.CrossRefPubMed
43.
de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:1033–9.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Mantha S, Roizen MF, Fleisher LA, Thisted R, Foss J. Comparing methods of clinical measurement: reporting standards for bland and altman analysis. Anesth Analg. 2000;90:593–602.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Bland MJ, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;327:307–10.CrossRef
46.
Hamilton C, Stamey J. Using bland-Altman to assess agreement between two medical devices--don't forget the confidence intervals. J Clin Monit Comput. 2007;21:331–3.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Schaufeli WB, Bakker AB, Salanova M. The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire a cross-national study. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66:701–16.CrossRef
48.
Hartung TJ, Mehnert A, Friedrich M, Hartmann M, Vehling S, Bokemeyer C, et al. Age-related variation and predictors of long-term quality of life in germ cell tumor survivors. Urol Oncol. 2016;34:60.e1–6.
49.
Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J Clinical Epidemiol. 1999;52:861–73.CrossRef
50.
Weng LJ. Impact of the number of response categories and anchor labels on coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability. Educ Psychol Meas. 2004;64:956–72.CrossRef
51.
Mujahid MS, Janz NK, Hawley ST, Griggs JJ, Hamilton AS, Katz SJ. The impact of sociodemographic, treatment, and work support on missed work after breast cancer diagnosis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;119:213–20.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Aziz NM, Rowland JH. Cancer survivorship research among ethnic minority and medically underserved groups. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2002;29:789–801.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Reio TG, Shuck B. Exploratory factor analysis: implications for theory, research, and practice. Adv Devel. Hum Resour. 2015;17:12–25.
54.
Gaskin CJ, Happell B. On exploratory factor analysis: a review of recent evidence, an assessment of current practice, and recommendations for future use. Int J Nurs Stud. 2014;51:511–21.CrossRefPubMed
55.
56.
Verdonck-de Leeuw IM, van Bleek W-J, Leemans CR, de Bree R. Employment and return to work in head and neck cancer survivors. Oral Oncol. 2010;46:56–60.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
The quality of working life questionnaire for cancer survivors (QWLQ-CS): factorial structure, internal consistency, construct validity and reproducibility
Authors
Merel de Jong
Sietske J. Tamminga
Robert J. J. van Es
Monique H. W. Frings-Dresen
Angela G. E. M. de Boer
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Cancer / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2407
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3966-1

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

BMC Cancer 1/2018 Go to the issue

Research article

Trends in cervical cancer incidence and survival in Estonia from 1995 to 2014

Research article

A novel canine histiocytic sarcoma cell line: initial characterization and utilization for drug screening studies

Research article

Different mutational characteristics of the subsets of EGFR-tyrosine kinase inhibitor sensitizing mutation-positive lung adenocarcinoma

Research article

Prognostic value of inflammation-based scores in patients receiving radical resection for colorectal cancer

Research article

Impact of viral presence in tumor on gene expression in non-small cell lung cancer

Technical advance

A novel detection methodology for HER2 protein quantitation in formalin-fixed, paraffin embedded clinical samples using fluorescent nanoparticles: an analytical and clinical validation study
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits