Next Article in Journal
Surgical Process Improvement Tools: Defining Quality Gaps and Priority Areas in Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery
Previous Article in Journal
Prospective Evaluation of Unmet Needs of Rural and Aboriginal Cancer Survivors in Northern British Columbia
 
 
Current Oncology is published by MDPI from Volume 28 Issue 1 (2021). Previous articles were published by another publisher in Open Access under a CC-BY (or CC-BY-NC-ND) licence, and they are hosted by MDPI on mdpi.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with Multimed Inc..
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Rasch analysis of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and research implications

by
O. Cheifetz
1,2,*,
T.L. Packham
2 and
J.C. MacDermid
3,4
1
Hematology/Oncology Program, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
2
School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
3
Oncology Rehabilitation Program, Hamilton Health Sciences, Hamilton, ON, Canada
4
Hand and Upper Limb Centre, St. Joseph’s Health Centre, London, ON, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21(2), 186-194; https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1735
Submission received: 2 January 2014 / Revised: 3 February 2014 / Accepted: 5 March 2014 / Published: 1 April 2014

Abstract

Background: Reliable and valid assessment of the disease burden across all forms of cancer is critical to the evaluation of treatment effectiveness and patient progress. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (esas) is used for routine evaluation of people attending for cancer care. In the present study, we used Rasch analysis to explore the measurement properties of the esas and to determine the effect of using Raschproposed interval-level esas scoring compared with traditional scoring when evaluating the effects of an exercise program for cancer survivors. Methods: Polytomous Rasch analysis (Andrich’s rating-scale model) was applied to data from 26,645 esas questionnaires completed at the Juravinski Cancer Centre. The fit of the esas to the polytomous Rasch model was investigated, including evaluations of differential item functioning for sex, age, and disease group. The research implication was investigated by comparing the results of an observational research study previously analysed using a traditional approach with the results obtained by Rasch-proposed interval-level esas scoring. Results: The Rasch reliability index was 0.73, falling short of the desired 0.80–0.90 level. However, the esas was found to fit the Rasch model, including the criteria for uni-dimensional data. The analysis suggests that the current esas scoring system of 0–10 could be collapsed to a 6-point scale. Use of the Rasch-proposed interval-level scoring yielded results that were different from those calculated using summarized ordinallevel esas scores. Differential item functioning was not found for sex, age, or diagnosis groups. Conclusions: The esas is a moderately reliable uni-dimensional measure of cancer disease burden and can provide interval-level scaling with Rasch-based scoring. Further, our study indicates that, compared with the traditional scoring metric, Rasch-based scoring could result in substantive changes to conclusions.
Keywords: Edmonton Symptom Assessment System; esas; Rasch analysis Edmonton Symptom Assessment System; esas; Rasch analysis

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Cheifetz, O.; Packham, T.L.; MacDermid, J.C. Rasch analysis of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and research implications. Curr. Oncol. 2014, 21, 186-194. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1735

AMA Style

Cheifetz O, Packham TL, MacDermid JC. Rasch analysis of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and research implications. Current Oncology. 2014; 21(2):186-194. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1735

Chicago/Turabian Style

Cheifetz, O., T.L. Packham, and J.C. MacDermid. 2014. "Rasch analysis of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and research implications" Current Oncology 21, no. 2: 186-194. https://doi.org/10.3747/co.21.1735

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop