Psychometric evaluation of the Arabic version of the lymphedema life impact scale in breast cancer patients

Psychometric Properties of Quality of Life Questionnaires for Patients with Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Systematic Review

“…LLIS ver.2 was rated “high” only for construct validity. Meanwhile, the quality of evidence of the other measurement properties was varied from “very low” for reliability, “low” for content validity and structural validity, to “moderate” for internal consistency and criterion validity These scores were given due to the following reasons: a poor description of content validation process; only one available study with “adequate” quality on structural validity and reliability; the insufficient sample size (<50 for reliability; <100 for criterion validity); and also because the study included non-lymphedema patients for structural validity, internal consistency, criterion validity analysis (44.8% of the total study population) [ 46 , 47 ].Lymphedema Functioning, Disability, and Health Questionnaire for Upper Limb (Lymph-ICF-UL) is a 29-item self-reported questionnaire developed by Devoogdt et al in 2011 that aimed to quantitatively evaluate problems in functioning related to lymphedema of the upper limb [ 49 ]. When compared to the other included PROMs, Lymph-ICF-UL assessed the greatest number of measurement properties as recommended by COSMIN.…”

“…There was inadequate evidence on cross-cultural validity, measurement error, criterion validity, and responsiveness. A total of thirteen studies [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 ] evaluated the translated version of the PROMs, but cross-cultural validity has not yet been assessed. Cross-cultural validity should be assessed in these translation studies because it is essential to know whether the translated versions assess in the same manner as their original version.…”

“…This review revealed that only six studies use the COSMIN recommendations as their guideline in developing and validating the PROMs [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 58 , 59 ]. Other studies that translated and validated PROMs to other languages also used different translation guidelines [ 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 52 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 ].…”

“…According to Prinsen et al, recommendations on the most suitable PROM for use both in clinical and research settings can be formulated by categorizing the included PROMs into three categories: (A) PROMs that have the potential to be recommended as the most suitable PROM for the construct and population of interest (i.e., PROMs with evidence for sufficient content validity (any level) and at least low evidence for sufficient internal consistency); (B) PROMs that may have potential to be recommended, but further validation studies are needed (i.e., PROMs categorized not in A or C); (C) PROMs that should not be recommended (i.e., PROMs with high quality of evidence for insufficient measurement properties) [ 29 , 30 ]. Based on the quality assessments, we categorized the included PROMs into each category: (A) LLIS ver.1 [ 44 , 45 ], Lymph-ICF-UL [ 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 ], and ULL-QoL [ 58 ]; (B) LYMQOL-Arm [ 41 , 42 ], LLIS ver.2 [ 46 , 47 ]; (C) LSIDS-A [ 54 , 55 ] and ULL-27 [ 56 , 57 ]. They also advised recommending only one most suitable PROM.…”