KANSER HASTALARINDA FACIT-DISPNEA SKALASININ TÜRKÇE VERSİYONUNUN PSİKOMETRİK ÖZELLİKLERİ

Year 2025, Volume: 36 Issue: 2, 203 - 210, 22.09.2025

Merve Türkoğlu , Didem Karadibak , Ezgi Ergin , Eda Çalışkan Yıldırım , Tugba Yavuzşen

https://doi.org/10.21653/tjpr.1621643

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada Kronik Hastalık Terapisinin Fonksiyonel Değerlendirmesi (FACIT)-Dispne Kısa Formu’nun Türkçe versiyonunun kanser hastalarında geçerliliğini ve güvenilirliğini araştırmak amaçlandı.
Yöntem: Çalışmaya dispne şikayeti olan elli iki kanser hastası dahil edildi. FACIT-Dispne’nin geçerliliği ve güvenilirliği, açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri, yapı geçerliliği, iç tutarlılık [Cronbach alfa (α)], test-tekrar test güvenilirliği [sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı (ICC)], madde-toplam korelasyonları ve split-half testleri ile değerlendirildi. Yapı geçerliliği için FACIT-Dispne ile Doğu Kooperatif Onkoloji Grubu (ECOG), Performans Ölçeği, Medikal Araştırma Konseyi Dispne Ölçeği, Kanser Dispne Ölçeği ve EuroQol 5-Boyutlu 3-Seviyeli anket (EuroQoL-5D-3L) arasındaki korelasyonlar incelendi.
Bulgular: Faktör Analizi sonuçları, FACIT-Dispne’nin tek faktörlü bir yapıya sahip olduğunu ve tüm maddelerin yüksek faktör yüklerine sahip olduğunu gösterdi. FACIT-Dispne ile ECOG, Medikal Araştırma Konseyi Dispne Ölçeği, Kanser Dispne Ölçeği ve EuroQoL-5D-3L arasında anlamlı korelasyonlar bulundu (p<0,05). FACIT-Dispne’nin Cronbach α’sı 0,973 ve ICC 0,85 olarak bulundu. FACIT-Dispne’deki maddelerin toplam madde korelasyonları 0,695 ile 0,948 arasında değişmekteydi. Split-half testinde, FACIT-Dispne’nin ilk bölümü için Cronbach α’sı 0,937 ve ikinci bölümü için 0,955 idi.
Sonuç: FACIT-Dispne’nin Türkçe versiyonu, kanser hastalarında geçerli ve güvenilirdir ve araştırmacılar ve klinisyenler tarafından kullanılmaya uygundur.

Keywords

Kanser , Dispne , Faktör analizi , Sağlıkla ilgili yaşam kalitesi , Geçerlilik ve güvenilirlik

Ethical Statement

Bu çalışma, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Girişimsel Olmayan Araştırmalar Etik Kurulu’nun 2021/27-19 karar numarasıyla onayı alınarak Helsinki Bildirgesi’ne uygun olarak yürütüldü.

PSYCHOMETRIC PROPERTIES OF THE TURKISH VERSION OF THE FACIT-DYSPNEA SCALE IN CANCER PATIENTS

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Dyspnea Short Form in patients with cancer.
Methods: Fifty-two patients with cancer with complaint of dyspnea were included in the study. The validity and reliability of the FACIT-Dyspnea were evaluated via exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, construct validity, internal consistency [Cronbach’s alpha (α)], test-retest reliability [intraclass correlation coefficient, (ICC)], item-total correlations and split-half tests. For construct validity, correlations between FACIT-Dyspnea and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), Performance Scale, Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, Cancer Dyspnea Scale and EuroQol 5-Dimension 3-Level questionnaire (EuroQoL-5D-3L) were examined.
Results: Factor Analyses results showed that the FACIT-Dyspnea has a unifactorial structure, with all items having high factor loadings. Significant correlations were found between the FACIT-Dyspnea and the ECOG, Medical Research Council Dyspnea Scale, Cancer Dyspnea Scale, and EuroQoL-5D-3L scores (p< 0.05). Cronbach’s α of the FACIT-Dyspnea was found to be 0.973 and ICC was 0.85. Item-total correlations for items in the FACIT-Dyspnea ranged from 0.695 to 0.948. In the split-half test, the Cronbach’s α for the first part of the FACIT-Dyspnea was 0.937 and for the second part was 0.955.
Conclusion: The Turkish version of FACIT-Dyspnea is valid and reliable in patients with cancer and is suitable for use by researchers and clinicians.

Keywords

Cancer , Dyspnea , Factor analysis , Health-related quality of life , Validity and reliability

Ethical Statement

The study was approved by the Dokuz Eylul University Noninvasive Research Ethics Committee (decision number: 2021/27-19) and was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

References

• Siegel RL, Miller KD, Wagle NS, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2023. CA Cancer J Clin. 2023;73:17-48.
• Hui D, Bohlke K, Bao T, Campbell TC, Coyne PJ, Currow DC, et al. Management of dyspnea in advanced cancer: ASCO guideline. J Clin Oncol. 2021;39:1389-411.
• Ekström M, Johnson MJ, Schiöler L, Kaasa S, Hjermstad MJ, Currow DC. Who experiences higher and increasing breathlessness in advanced cancer? The longitudinal EPCCS Study. Support Care Cancer. 2016;24(9):3803-11.
• Shin J, Kober K, Wong ML, Yates P, Miaskowski C. Systematic review of the literature on the occurrence and characteristics of dyspnea in oncology patients. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2023;181:103870.
• Ku Bİ, Oh DW, Lee MJ, Kim SK. Reliability and validity of Korean version of FACIT-dyspnea 10 item short form in patients with cancer. Phys Ther Korea. 2020;27(2):111-7.
• Dudgeon DJ, Kristjanson L, Sloan JA, Lertzman M, Clement K. Dyspnea in cancer patients: prevalence and associated factors. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2001;21:95-102.
• Choi SW, Victorson DE, Yount S, Anton S, Cella D. Development of a conceptual framework and calibrated item banks to measure patient-reported dyspnea severity and related functional limitations. Value Health. 2011;14(2):291-306.
• Hinchcliff ME, Beaumont JL, Carns MA, Podlusky S, Thavarajah K, Varga J, et al. Longitudinal evaluation of PROMIS-29 and FACIT-Dyspnea short forms in systemic sclerosis. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(1):64-72.
• Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000;25(24):3186-91.
• Memon MA, Ting H, Cheah JH, Thurasamy R, Chuah F, Cham TH. Sample size for survey research: review and recommendations. Journal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling. 2020;4(2):i-xx
• Api M, Purut YE, Akış S, Keleş E, Yasin C, Kabaca C, et al. EP1199 validation of Turkish version of eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG-PS) for gynecologic oncology patients. Int J Gynecol Cancer. 2019;29(Suppl 4):A617.
• Neeman E, Gresham G, Ovasapians N, Hendifar A, Tuli R, Figlin R, et al. Comparing physician and nurse eastern cooperative oncology group performance status (ECOG-PS) ratings as predictors of clinical outcomes in patients with cancer. Oncologist. 2019;24(12):e1460-6.
• Bitek DE, Tokem Y. Investigating the validity and reliability of cancer dyspnea scale in Turkish cancer patients. İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi. 2021;6(1):155-62.
• Kara D, Yıldız H. Effectiveness and frequencies of dyspnea scales in evaluating symptom of dyspnea. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi. 2013;2(1):137-49.
• Eser E, Dinç Horosan G, Cambaz Ulaş S, Özyurt B C. EURO-QoL (EQ-5D) İndeksinin Toplum Standartları ve Psikometrik Özellikleri: Manisa Kent Toplumu Örneklemi. 2 Sağlıkta Yaşam Kalitesi Kongresi. 2007:5-7.
• Bandalos DL, Finney SJ. Factor Analysis: Exploratory and confirmatory. The Reviewer’s Guide to Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences: 2nd ed. 2018: p. 98-122.
• Boateng GO, Neilands TB, Frongillo EA, Melgar-Quiñonez HR, Young SL. Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: a primer. Front Public Health. 2018;6:149.
• Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE. Multivariate data analysis. Eighth. Pearson Education Limited. 2018.
• Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763-8.
• Hajjar S. Statistical analysis: Internal-consistency reliability and construct validity. International Journal of Quantitative and Qualitative Research Methods. 2018;6(1):27-38.
• Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15(2):155-63.
• Wuttge DM, Chaplin JE, Sandqvist G. Validation of the Swedish version of PROMIS-29v2 and FACIT-Dyspnea Index in patients with systemic sclerosis. Disabil Rehabil. 2023;45(15):2517-25.
• Yount SE, Choi SW, Victorson D, Ruo B, Cella D, Anton S, et al. Brief, valid measures of dyspnea and related functional limitations in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Value Health. 2011;14(2):307-15.
• Hinchcliff M, Beaumont JL, Thavarajah K, Varga J, Chung A, Podlusky S, et al. Validity of two new patient-reported outcome measures in systemic sclerosis: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System 29-item Health Profile and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Dyspnea short form. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2011;63(11):1620-8.
• Shi D, Lee T, Maydeu-Olivares A. Understanding the model size effect on SEM Fit indices. Educ Psychol Meas. 2019;79(2):310-34.
• Karagöz Y. SPSS ve AMOS uygulamalı nicel-nitel-karma bilimsel araştırma yöntemleri. Sivas: Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık Eğitim Danışmanlık Tic. Ltd. Şti; 2017.
• Damani A, Ghoshal A, Salins N, Deodhar J, Muckaden M. Prevalence and intensity of dyspnea in advanced cancer and its impact on quality of life. Indian J Palliat Care. 2018;24(1):44-50.
• Atlı A, Düger T. An evaluation of quality of life and muscle strength in adult cancer patients receiving treatment. Turk J Physiother Rehabil. 2020;31(3):288-97.