OBJECTIVE: Childhood cancer survivors are at risk for neurocognitive impairment related to cancer diagnosis or treatment. This study refined and further validated the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study-Neurocognitive Questionnaire (CCSS-NCQ; Krull et al., 2008), a scale developed to screen for impairment in long-term survivors of childhood cancer. METHOD: Items related to task efficiency, memory, organization, and emotional-regulation domains were examined using item response theory (IRT). Data were collected from 833 adult survivors of childhood cancer who completed self-report and direct neurocognitive testing for the St. Jude Lifetime Cohort Study. The revision process included: (a) content-validity mapping of items to domains, (b) constructing a revised CCSS-NCQ, (c) selecting items within specific domains using IRT, and (d) evaluating concordance between the revised CCSS-NCQ and direct neurocognitive assessment. RESULTS: Using content and measurement properties, 32 items were retained (8 items in 4 domains). Items captured low to middle levels of neurocognitive concerns. The latent domain scores demonstrated poor convergent/divergent validity with the direct assessments. Adjusted ESs (ES; Cohen's d) for agreement between self-reported memory and direct memory assessment were moderate for total recall (ES = 0.66), long-term memory (ES = 0.63), and short-term memory (STM; ES = 0.55). ESs between self-rated task efficiency and direct assessment of attention were moderate for focused attention (ES = 0.70) and attention span (ES = 0.50), but small for sustained attention (ES = 0.36). Cranial radiation therapy and female gender were associated with lower self-reported neurocognitive function. CONCLUSION: The revised CCSS-NCQ demonstrates adequate measurement properties for assessing day-to-day neurocognitive concerns in childhood cancer survivors, and adds useful information to direct assessment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kenzik et al. (2014) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: