Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Health-related quality of life in young men with testicular cancer: validation of the Cancer Assessment for Young Adults (CAYA)

  • Published:
Journal of Cancer Survivorship Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Patient-reported outcome instruments are needed to measure health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in young adults with cancer. The purpose of this project was to establish a conceptual model and measurement instrument for assessment of HRQOL in young men with testicular cancer.

Methods

Patient interviews and a literature review were used to develop a conceptual framework of biopsychosocial domains of cancer-related quality of life and an initial pool of questionnaire items. Items were piloted and refined. Revised items were administered to a sample (N = 171) of young (ages 18–29) men with testicular cancer and repeated 4 weeks later. Rasch measurement methods guided item reduction and scale construction. Traditional psychometric analyses were also performed to allow for comparison with existing measures.

Results

The conceptual framework included seven biopsychosocial domains: physical, sexual, intrapersonal, cognitive–emotional, social–relational, educational–vocational–avocational, and spiritual to form independent scales of the resulting questionnaire, the Cancer Assessment for Young Adults–Testicular (CAYA-T). Each scale fulfilled Rasch and traditional psychometric criteria (i.e., person separation index, 0.34–0.82; Cronbach’s alpha, 0.70–0.91; and an expected pattern of convergent and discriminant validity correlations).

Conclusions

The CAYA-T can be used to assess HRQOL across a comprehensive set of domains as identified by young men with cancer. It passes strict psychometric criteria and has potential as a useful research and clinical tool.

Implications for cancer survivors

The CAYA-T has potential research and clinical value for addressing inter-related aspects of HRQOL in young adult men with cancer. The measure may assist with assessing and monitoring HRQOL across a range of domains and contributing to more comprehensive assessment of biopsychosocial needs of young adults.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Arnett JJ. Emerging adulthood: a theory of development from the late teens through the twenties. Am Psychol. 2000;55:469–80.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Zebrack BJ. Psychological, social, and behavioral issues for young adults with cancer. Cancer. 2011;117:2289–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. ACS (American Cancer Society). Cancer facts and figures. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Huang L, Cronin KA, Johnson KA, Mariotto AB, Feuer EJ. Improved survival time: what can survival cure models tell us about population-based survival improvements in late-stage colorectal, ovarian, and testicular cancer? Cancer. 2008;112:2289–300.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Sonneveld DJ, Hoekstra HJ, van der Graaf WT, et al. Improved long term survival of patients with metastatic nonseminomatous testicular germ cell carcinoma in relation to prognostic classification systems during the cisplatin era. Cancer. 2001;91:1304–15.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Travis LB, Beard C, Allan JM, et al. Testicular cancer survivorship: research strategies and recommendations. JNCI. 2010;102:1114–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Kim C, McGlynn KA, McCorkle R, et al. Quality of life among testicular cancer survivors: a case–control study in the United States. Qual Life Res. 2011;20:1629–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dahl AA, Mykletun A, Fossa SD. Quality of life in survivors of testicular cancer. Urol Oncol-Semin Ori. 2005;23(3):193–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Fleer J, Sleijfer DT, Hoekstra HJ, Tuinman MA. Objective and subjective predictors of cancer-related stress symptoms in testicular cancer survivors. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;64:142–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fleer J, Hoekstra HJ, Sleijfer DT, Hoekstra-Weebers JE. Quality of life of survivors of testicular germ cell cancer: a review of the literature. Support Care Cancer. 2004;12:476–86.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Rossen PB, Pedersen AF, Zachariae R, von der Maase H. Health-related quality of life in long-term survivors of testicular cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:5993–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Tuinman MA, Hoekstra HJ, Fleer J, Sleijfer DT, Hoekstra-Weebers JE. Self-esteem, social support, and mental health in survivors of testicular cancer: a comparison based on relationship status. Urol Oncol-Sem Ori. 2006;24:279–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Vidrine DJ, Hoekstra-Weebers JE, Hoekstra HJ, Tuinman MA, Marani S, Gritz ER. The effects of testicular cancer treatment on health-related quality of life. Urology. 2010;75:636–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Carpentier MY, Fortenberry JD, Ott MA, Brames MJ, Einhorn LH. Perceptions of masculinity and self-image in adolescent and young adult testicular cancer survivors: implications for romantic and sexual relationships. Psycho-Oncol. 2011;20:738–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rossen P, Pedersen AF, Zachariae R, von der Maase H. Sexuality and body image in long-term survivors of testicular cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:571–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Rudberg L, Carlsson M, Nilsson S, Wikblad K. Self-perceived physical, psychological, and general symptoms in survivors of testicular cancer: 3 to 13 years after treatment. Cancer Nurs. 2002;25:187–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. NCI/LYAA (National Cancer Institute and the Livestrong Young Adult Alliance). Closing the gap: research and care imperatives for adolescents and young adults with cancer (NIH publication no. 06-6067). 2006. http://planning.cancer.gov/library/AYAO_PRG_Report_2006_FINAL.pdf. Accessed: 1 Dec 2012.

  18. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C. Outcomes assessment in cancer. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  19. SACMOT (Scientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust). Assessing health status and quality of life instruments: attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res. 2002;11:193–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cano SJ, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Cordeiro PG, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q: further validation in independent clinical samples. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:293–302.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Ferrans CE. Definitions and conceptual models of quality of life. In: Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder C, editors. Outcomes assessment in cancer. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2005. p. 14–30.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Cella D. Assessment methods for quality of life in cancer patients: FACIT measurement system. Int J Pharm Med. 2000;14:78–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. EORTC (European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer). EORTC QLQ-C30 scoring manual. Brussels: EORTC, 2001.

  25. Peterman AH, Fitchett G, Brady MJ, Hernandez L, Cella D. Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy—spirituality well-being scale (FACT-Sp). Ann Behav Med. 2002;24:49–58.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Tomich P, Helgeson V. Is finding something good in the bad always good? Benefit-finding among women with breast cancer. Health Psychol. 2004;23:16–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Hoyt MA, Stanton AL, Irwin MR, Thomas KS. Cancer-related masculine threat, emotional approach coping, and physical functioning following treatment for prostate cancer. Health Psychol. 2013;32:66–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cutrona CE, Russell D. The provisions of social relationships and adaptation to stress. In: Jones WH, Perlman D, editors. Advances in personal relationships, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; 1987. p. 37–67.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Giese-Davis J, Koopman C, Butler LD, et al. The Stanford Emotional Self-Efficacy Scale-Cancer: reliability, validity, and generalizability. In: Nyklicek I, Temoshok L, Vingergoets A, editors. Emotional expression and health: advances in theory, assessment and clinical applications. New York: Routledge; 2004. p. 204–22.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Wrosch C, Scheier MF, Miller GE, Schulz R, Carver CS. Adaptive self-regulation of unattainable goals: goal disengagement, goal reengagement, and subjective well-being. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2003;29:1494–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS Short-Form General Health Survey: reliability and validity in a patient population. Med Care. 1988;26:724–35.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika. 1978;43:561–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Andrich D. Rasch models for measurement. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Rasch G. Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM 2030. Perth, Western Australia: RUMM Laboratory; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Hagquist C, Andrich D. Is the Sense of Coherence-instrument applicable on adolescents? A latent trait analysis using Rasch-modelling. Pers Individ Differ. 2004;36:955–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Andrich D. An index of person separation in latent trait theory, the traditional KR20 index, and the Guttman scale response pattern. Educ Psychol Res. 1982;9:95–104.

    Google Scholar 

  39. DeVellis R. Scale development: theory and applications. London: Sage; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kaplan RM, Bush JW, Berry CC. Health status: types of validity and the index of well-being. Heal Serv Res. 1976;11:478–507.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  42. Bohrnstedt GW. Handbook of survey measurement. New York: Academic; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. 3rd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Baruch Y. Response rate in academic studies: a comparative analysis. Hum Relat. 1999;52:421–38.

    Google Scholar 

  45. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Cancer care for the whole patient: meeting psychosocial needs. Board on Health Care Services. Washington, DC: The National Academic Press; 2007.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by funds from the Livestrong Foundation. The authors have no financial gain related to the outcome of this research, and there are no potential conflicts of interest. The full version of the developed instrument is available as an Electronic supplementary material or from the primary author.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Hunter College, City University of New York, 695 Park Avenue, Room 611-HN, New York, NY, 10065, USA

    Michael A. Hoyt

  2. Department of Psychology, Graduate Center, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Michael A. Hoyt

  3. Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, Plymouth, United Kingdom

    Stefan J. Cano

  4. Department of Urology, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Christopher S. Saigal

  5. Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Christopher S. Saigal & Annette L. Stanton

  6. Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Annette L. Stanton

  7. Cousins Center for Psychoneuroimmunology, Semel Institute, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Annette L. Stanton

Authors
  1. Michael A. Hoyt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefan J. Cano
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christopher S. Saigal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Annette L. Stanton
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael A. Hoyt.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

DOCX 26 kb

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hoyt, M.A., Cano, S.J., Saigal, C.S. et al. Health-related quality of life in young men with testicular cancer: validation of the Cancer Assessment for Young Adults (CAYA). J Cancer Surviv 7, 630–640 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0302-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-013-0302-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation