Cross-sectional study validates culturally appropriate EORTC QoL questionnaires for oesophageal cancer in Khasi speakers, ensuring reliable assessment tools.
Objectives: Oesophageal cancer (OC) is characterised by poor prognosis, a significant reduction in Quality of Life (QoL) and requirement for morbid therapy. The highest age-adjusted rate of OC incidence in India was seen in the East Khasi Hills district of Meghalaya, being 10 times the national average. This study aimed to develop and validate Khasi translations of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C-30) Version 3.0 and EORTC QLQ-OES-18 questionnaires for use in the Khasi-speaking population of Meghalaya. Materials and Methods: This study was conducted as a part of a hospital-based cross-sectional study to develop and validate a Khasi-translated version of the QLQ-C-30 and QLQ-OES-18 questionnaires. The questionnaire was translated into the local (Khasi) language and validated (two-phase process: Two forward translations, two backward translations, followed by pilot testing). Reliability assessment was done using Cronbach’s alpha. The construct validity and the correlation of each scale of the QLQ-C30 and QLQ-OES18 were evaluated using Spearman’s correlation coefficient (r). Results: Cronbach’s alpha was satisfactory (>0.70) for all the scales of QLQ-C-30 and QLQ-OES-18. Convergent validity was moderate to high (r = 0.541 to 0.995) (Global health domain convergent validity r = 0.983–0.995), whereas discriminant validity was acceptably low (Global health domain divergent validity of r = 0.006–0.474) for all scales. Correlation coefficient values for each scale between QLQ-C-30 and QLQ-OES-18 ranged from 0.001 to 0.557. Conclusion: The Khasi versions of the QLQ-C-30 and QLQ-OES-18 demonstrate good psychometric validity, proving to be a reliable and culturally appropriate valuable tool for assessing QoL in OC patients in the Khasi-speaking population of North-East India.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Debnath et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: