Reliability and validity of the Arabic translation of the palliative performance scale

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study was to translate the Palliative Performance Scale (PPSv2) into Arabic and to test the reliability and validity of the PPS Arabic translation (PPS-Arabic). Method The PPSv2 was translated into Modern Standard Arabic using a forward–backward method. Inter-rater and intra-rater reliabilities were tested in a pilot study that included 20 patients. The validation study included 150 cancer patients. Patients were divided according to their treatment plan into three groups (in-remission, palliative chemotherapy, and best supportive care) to perform hypothesis-testing construct validity. Validity was further evaluated by correlating PPS-Arabic with the Karnofsky Performance Scale (KPS), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) scale, and Physical Functioning (PF2) and Role Functioning (RF2) scales of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30). Results The intraclass correlation coefficients for the intra-rater and inter-rater reliability were 0.935 (95% CI: 0.88–0.965; p < 0.001) and 0.965 (95% CI: 0.934–0.981; p < 0.001), respectively. The PPS-Arabic internal consistency Cronbach's alpha was 0.986. The average PPS-Arabic score differed significantly (p < 0.001) between the three groups of patients being 89 for in-remission, 58 for palliative chemotherapy, and 38 for best supportive care. The PPS-Arabic score correlated significantly (p < 0.001) with the KPS, ECOG performance scale, and the EORTC QLQ-C30 PF2 and RF2 scales. Conclusion The PPS-Arabic is a reliable and valid tool for the assessment of performance status of cancer patients.

The Turkish Validity and Reliability Study of Palliative Performance Scale

“…[ 16 ] The findings of our study also show compatibility with the previously published other ones. [ 14 24 ] We have found the ICCs of intra-rater agreements at least 0.956 (95% CI: 0.909–0.977) for three raters. Test–retest reliability was found as 0.89 (0.68–0.96) and inter-observer reliability as 0.75 (0.26–0.92) in the Spanish study, which were a little lower than our results.…”

“…[ 14 ] In the Arabic version, the intra-rater, test–retest, ICC was 0.935 (95% CI: 0.88–0.965, P < 0.001). [ 24 ]…”

Psychometric Properties and Factorial Analysis of the Arabic McGill-QoL Questionnaire in Breast Cancer

“…It measures the spiritual aspect as an existential factor, which can have a significant role in coping with cancer and identifying important contributors to HRQoL in cancer patients. [20][21][22] Furthermore, the MQOL-R has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and equivalence to the original version. 22 It has also been successfully adapted and validated in Polish, 25 Brazilian, 26 Italian, 27 and Korean 28 samples of patients with cancer and/or undergoing palliative care.…”

“…[12][13][14] In response to this need, several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been validated in Arabic, such as the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire-23 item (QLQ-BR23), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), the EORTC Quality of Life Questionnaire, Version 3.0 (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the FACT-G. [15][16][17][18][19] However, these instruments are lengthy, primarily focus on physical characteristics and symptoms, and fail to consider existential or spiritual attributes. [20][21][22] Furthermore, these tools solely concentrate on the negative aspects of quality of life, despite both positive and negative factors influencing it. 23,24 The McGill Quality of Life-Revised (MQOL-R) Questionnaire consists of 15 items that assess physical, psychological, existential, and social aspects, including a single item to measure the overall quality of life (QoL).…”

“…28 The variability in internal consistency for the physical subscales can be attributed to the fact that this domain measures different aspects of physical health, such as physical symptoms, physical well-being, and physical function, which may not necessarily correlate consistently. [20][21][22] Furthermore, the variability in sample characteristics, as observed in the Italian study, included end-of-life patients with neurooncological conditions that directly impact physical health.…”