The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review

Various instruments are used to assess both individual and multiple cancer symptoms. We evaluated the psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments.

An Ovid MEDLINE search was done. All searches were limited to adults and in English. All instruments published from 2005 to 2014 (and with at least one validity test) were included. We excluded those who only reported content validity. Instruments were categorized by the three major types of symptom measurement scales employed as follows: visual analogue (VAS), verbal rating (VRS), and numerical rating (NRS) scales. They were then examined in two areas: (1) psychometric thoroughness (number of tests) and (2) psychometric strength of evidence (validity, reliability, generalizability). We also assigned an empirical global psychometric quality score (which combined the concepts of thoroughness and strength of evidence) to rank the instruments.

We analyzed 57 instruments (17 original, 40 modifications). They varied in types of scales used, symptom dimensions measured, and time frames evaluated. Of the 57, 10 used VAS, 28 VRS, and 19 NRS. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), ESAS-Spanish, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)-Russian, and MDASI-Taiwanese were the most comprehensively tested for validity and reliability. The ESAS, ESAS-Spanish, ASDS-2, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)-SF, POMS, SDS, MDASI (and some translations), and MDASI-Heart Failure all showed good validity and reliability.

The MDASI appeared to be the best overall from a psychometric perspective. This was followed by the ESAS, ESAS-Spanish, POMS, SDS, and some MDASI translations. VRS-based instruments were most common. There was a wide range of psychometric rigor in validation. Consequently, meta-analysis was not possible. Most cancer multisymptom assessment instruments need further extensive validation to establish the excellent reliability and validity required for clinical utility and meaningful research.