Skip to main content
Log in

A comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scale formats for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): Does format affect patient ratings of symptoms and quality of life?

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Problem and Purpose: The Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS), a site-specific health-related quality of life measure for patients with lung cancer, was originally developed using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) format. However, the VAS format is not readily compatible with data management and software programs using scanning. The primary aim of this study was to evaluate the convergence of ratings obtained with a Numerical Rating Scale (NRS), with an 11-pt response category format, to those obtained with a VAS format. The intent was to determine the degree of agreement between two formats to generalize the existing psychometric properties for the original measure to the new presentation. Design/setting: This methodological study evaluated the feasibility, reliability, and validity of a NRS format for the LCSS. The study was conducted at two cancer centers in New York City. Patients/procedures: Sixty-eight patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) completed both versions of the LCSS along with demographic and feasibility questions on a single occasion. The VAS form was administered first, followed by the NRS form to prevent bias. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), Lin’s concordance correlation coefficient (CCC), and Bland–Altman plots were used to evaluate agreement and to characterize bias. Results: Cronbach’s alpha for the NRS format total score was 0.89 for the 68 patients with NSCLC. Agreement was excellent, with both the ICC and CCC 0.90 for the two summary scores (total score and average symptom burden index) for the LCSS. Only five of the nine individual items showed this level of strict agreement. An agreement criterion of 0.80 (representing excellent) was observed for seven of the nine individual items (all but appetite loss and hemoptysis). Mean differences tended to be slightly lower for the VAS format compared to the NRS format (more so for the appetite and hemoptysis items), with evidence of scale shift for the same two items. The summary measures showed good concordance as measured by the ICC and CCC, but did display mean differences (VAS – NRS) of −2.7 and −3.1, respectively. Conclusions: Overall, the NRS format for the LCSS suitable for scanning has good feasibility, reliability (internal consistency), and convergent validity. The complete set of concordance evaluation measures supports the reproducibility of VAS scores by NRS scores, particularly for the two summary scores.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • JC Nunnally IH Bernstein (1994) Psychometric Theory EditionNumber3 McGraw-Hill New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • InstitutionalAuthorNameScientific Advisory Committee of the Medical Outcomes Trust (2002) ArticleTitleAssessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Qual Life Res 11 193–205

    Google Scholar 

  • SG Nayfield PA Ganz CM Moinpour et al. (1992) ArticleTitleReport from a National Cancer Institute (USA) workshop on quality of life assessment in cancer clinical trials. Qual Life Res 1 203–210

    Google Scholar 

  • SB Hulley SR Cummings WS Browner et al. (2001) Designing Clinical Research: An Epidemiologic Approach EditionNumber2 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, PA

    Google Scholar 

  • J Cohen (1968) ArticleTitleWeighted kappa: Nominal scale agreement with provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit. Psychol Bull 70 213–220

    Google Scholar 

  • JM Bland DG Altman (1986) ArticleTitleStatistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1 IssueID8476 307–310 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BimC3MjhvFc%3D Occurrence Handle2868172

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • RA Deyo P Diehr DL Patrick (1991) ArticleTitleReproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: Statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 12 142S–158S Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:By2C3snotFE%3D Occurrence Handle1663851

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • LI-K Lin (1989) ArticleTitleA concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 45 255–268 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:BiaB2cjmvVA%3D Occurrence Handle2720055

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • ML Rothman SC Hedrick KA Bulcroft et al. (1991) ArticleTitleThe validity of proxy-generated scores as measures of patient health status. Med Care 29 115–124

    Google Scholar 

  • GN Marshall RD Hays R Nicholas (1994) ArticleTitleEvaluating agreement between clinical assessment methods. Int of Method Psych 4 249–257

    Google Scholar 

  • PE Shrout JL Fleiss (1979) ArticleTitleIntraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psych Bull 86 420–428

    Google Scholar 

  • MC Tammemagi JW Frank M LeBlanc et al. (1995) ArticleTitleMethodological issues in assessing reproducibility–A comparative study of various indices of reproducibility applied to repeat ELISA serologic tests for Lyme disease. J Clin Epidemiol 48 1123–1132

    Google Scholar 

  • TS King VM Chinchilli (2001) ArticleTitleRobust estimators of the concordance correlation coefficient. J Biopharma Statist 11 83–105

    Google Scholar 

  • JL Carrasco L Jover (2003) ArticleTitleEstimating the generalized concordance correlation coefficient through variance components. Biometrics 59 849–858

    Google Scholar 

  • PJ Hollen RJ Gralla MG Kris LM Potanovich (1993) ArticleTitleQuality of life assessment in individuals with lung cancer: Testing the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Eur J Cancer 29 S51–S58

    Google Scholar 

  • PJ Hollen RJ Gralla MG Kris C Cox (1994) ArticleTitleQuality of life during clinical trials: Conceptual model for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Support Care Cancer 2 213–222

    Google Scholar 

  • Cardiff Software I: Teleform for Windows user guide, 1995.

  • LJ Davidson WJ Ryan JM Rohay et al. (1996) ArticleTitleTechnological advances in data entry and verification: Is Teleform for you? Nurs Res 45 373–376

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke MT, Gralla R, Kris M, et al. Subjective evaluation in non-small cell lung cancer: Comparison of Karnofsky performance status with a patient generated visual analogue scale measuring activity. In: Proceedings of the IVth World Conference on Lung Cancer, 1985; 4: 42.

  • P Monras RJ Gralla MT Burke et al. (1985) ArticleTitleDevelopment of specific instruments for subjective evaluation of patients with lung cancer: Comparison of observer assessment with patient-generated visual analogue scales. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 4 251

    Google Scholar 

  • PJ Hollen RJ Gralla MG Kris et al. (1994) ArticleTitleMeasurement of quality of life in patients with lung cancer in multicenter trials of new therapies: Psychometric assessment of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale. Cancer 73 2087–2098

    Google Scholar 

  • PJ Hollen RJ Gralla MG Kris et al. (1995) An overview of the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale. RJ Gralla CM Moinpour (Eds) Assessing quality of Life in Patients with Lung Cancer: A Guide for Clinicians NCM New York 57–63

    Google Scholar 

  • PJ Hollen RJ Gralla MG Kris et al. (1999) ArticleTitleNormative data and trends in quality of life from the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS). Support Care Cancer 7 140–148

    Google Scholar 

  • HC Kraemer S Thiemann (1987) How Many Subjects? Statistical Power Analysis in Research. Sage Publications Newbury Park

    Google Scholar 

  • JR Landis GG Koch (1977) ArticleTitleThe measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33 159–174 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:CSiC3srhvFI%3D Occurrence Handle843571

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • KC Sneeuw NK Aaronson MA Sprangers et al. (1998) ArticleTitleComparison of patient and proxy EORTC QLQ-C30 ratings in assessing the quality of life of cancer patients. J Clin Epidemiol 51 617–631

    Google Scholar 

  • BJ Winer (1971) Statistical Principles in Experimental Design EditionNumber2 McGraw-Hill New York

    Google Scholar 

  • KO McGraw SP Wong (1996) ArticleTitleForming inferences about some intraclass correlation coefficients. Psychol Meth 1 30–46

    Google Scholar 

  • L I-K Lin (2000) ArticleTitleA note on the concordance correlation coefficient. Biometrics 56 324–325

    Google Scholar 

  • DG Altman JM Bland (1983) ArticleTitleMeasurement in medicine: The analysis of method comparison studies. The Statistician 32 307–317

    Google Scholar 

  • JA Sloan CL Loprinzi SA Kuross et al. (1998) ArticleTitleRandomized comparison of four tools measuring overall quality of life in patients with advanced cancer. J Clin Oncol 16 3662–3673 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:DyaK1M%2Fjt1ajsw%3D%3D Occurrence Handle9817289

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • PJ Hollen RJ Gralla (2000) ArticleTitleClinical vs. statistical significance: Using the LCSS quality of life instrument and Karnofsky performance status to approach the problem in patients with non-small cell lung cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 19 636a

    Google Scholar 

  • MathSoft, Inc. S-PLUS 2000 user’s guide. Seattle, WA: Data Analysis Products Division, May 1999.

  • D Wilkie N Lovejoy M Dodd M Tesler (1990) ArticleTitleCancer pain intensity measurement: Concurrent validity of three tools–Finger Dynamometer, Pain Intensity Number Scale, Visual Analogue Scale. The Hospice Journal 6 IssueID1 1–13

    Google Scholar 

  • KL Syrjala (1987) The management of pain. DB McGuire CH Yarbro (Eds) Cancer Pain Management Grune & Stratton Orlando, Fl 133–150

    Google Scholar 

  • CS Cleeland R Gonin AK Hatfield (1994) ArticleTitlePain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer. N Engl J Med 330 592–596 Occurrence Handle10.1056/NEJM199403033300902 Occurrence Handle1:STN:280:ByuC3svhsVU%3D Occurrence Handle7508092

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to P.J. Hollen.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hollen, P., Gralla, R., Kris, M. et al. A comparison of visual analogue and numerical rating scale formats for the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS): Does format affect patient ratings of symptoms and quality of life?. Qual Life Res 14, 837–847 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0833-8

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-004-0833-8

Keywords

Navigation