Validation and reliability testing of the Breast-Q latissimus dorsi questionnaire: cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric properties in a Swedish population

Lynne Kamya, Emma Hansson, Linn Weick, Emma Hansson, Lynne Kamya, Emma Hansson, Linn Weick, Emma Hansson

Abstract

Background: The main aim of post-mastectomy breast reconstruction is to improve the patient's quality of life, which makes high-quality and validated patient-reported outcome measurements essential. None of the established instruments include evaluation of donor-site morbidity, such as impact on upper extremity and back function, when a latissimus dorsi (LD) muscle is used; and BREAST-Q LD questionnaire was therefore recently developed for this purpose. The aim of this study was to translate into Swedish and culturally adapt the BREAST-Q LD questionnaire's two subscales, appearance and function, and perform a psychometric evaluation of the subscales in a Swedish population of patients.

Methods: This was a cross-sectional study. The questionnaire was translated according to established guidelines. The questionnaires were sent to all patients operated using an LD flap between 2007 and 2017. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach's α. Inter-item correlations and corrected item-total correlations were calculated using the Pearson's correlation coefficient. Convergent validity was evaluated by comparing the BREAST-Q LD questionnaire to the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder Index, using the Spearman correlation coefficient. Test-retest reliability was tested with intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and the coefficient of variation and Bland-Altman plots were drawn. Floor and ceiling effects were calculated. Known-group validation was tested by comparing scores from the patients and from normal controls using the Mann-Whitney U-test and by calculating eta squared effect size.

Results: The questionnaires were sent to 176 eligible patients and 125 responded (71%). The patients had been operated a mean of 6.6 years ago, and most (92%) had previous radiation. Internal consistency was satisfactory for both subscales. The correlation coefficients between questions were r > 0.30 for all items of both scales. The corrected item-total correlation coefficient ranged from 0.62 to 0.90. As hypothesised, the function scale was correlated with the WOOS "Physical symptoms" subscale. Reliability was adequate according to the ICCs. The ceiling effect threshold for the appearance scale was reached and that for the back scale was almost reached. There were significant differences between patients and controls, in the hypothesised direction.

Conclusions: The results of this study support a good internal consistency, convergent validity, test-retest reliability and known-group validation for the Swedish BREAST-Q LD questionnaire. However, it may be difficult to discriminate between patients with very mild and those with no symptoms using the appearance scale.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov identifier NCT04526561.

Keywords: Breast reconstruction; Health-related quality of life; Latissimus dorsi flap; Patient-reported outcomes measures; Psychometrics; Reliability; Validity.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
The course of the study. The figure was inspired by figure 1 in Zmnako and Chalabi. Cross-cultural adaptation, reliability and validity of the Vertigo Symptom Scale—Short Form in the central Kurdish dialect. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes (2019) 17:125. Figure created by Åsa Bell, medical photographer, Department of Plastic and Reconstructive surgery, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Bland–Altman plot for the satisfaction with back appearance scale
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Bland–Altman plot for the satisfaction with shoulder and back function scale

References

    1. Harcourt D, Rumsey N. Psychological aspects of breast reconstruction: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs. 2001;35:477–487. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2648.2001.01865.x.
    1. Potter S, Holcombe C, Ward JA, Blazeby JM, Group BS Development of a core outcome set for research and audit studies in reconstructive breast surgery. Br J Surg. 2015;102:1360–1371. doi: 10.1002/bjs.9883.
    1. Potter S, Thomson HJ, Greenwood RJ, Hopwood P, Winters ZE. Health-related quality of life assessment after breast reconstruction. Br J Surg. 2009;96:613–620. doi: 10.1002/bjs.6605.
    1. Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Scott AM, Klok JA, Cordeiro PG, Cano SJ. Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: the BREAST-Q. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:345–353. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807.
    1. Cohen WA, Mundy LR, Ballard TN, Klassen A, Cano SJ, Browne J, Pusic AL. The BREAST-Q in surgical research: a review of the literature 2009–2015. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:149–162. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013.
    1. Browne JP, Jeevan R, Pusic AL, Klassen AF, Gulliver-Clarke C, Pereira J, Caddy CM, Cano SJ. Measuring the patient perspective on latissimus dorsi donor site outcomes following breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:336–343. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2017.08.028.
    1. Maxwell GP. Iginio Tansini and the origin of the latissimus dorsi musculocutaneous flap. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1980;65:686–692. doi: 10.1097/00006534-198005000-00027.
    1. Hammond DC. Latissimus dorsi flap breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2007;34:75–82. doi: 10.1016/j.cps.2006.11.008.
    1. Steffenssen MCW, Kristiansen AH, Damsgaard TE. A systematic review and meta-analysis of functional shoulder impairment after latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2019;82:116–127. doi: 10.1097/SAP.0000000000001691.
    1. Koh E, Watson DI, Dean NR. Quality of life and shoulder function after latissimus dorsi breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2018;71:1317–1323. doi: 10.1016/j.bjps.2018.05.011.
    1. Garusi C, Manconi A, Lanni G, Lomeo G, Loschi P, Simoncini MC, Santoro L, Rietjens M, Petit JY. Shoulder function after breast reconstruction with the latissimus dorsi flap: a prospective cohort study—combining DASH score and objective evaluation. Breast. 2016;27:78–86. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.02.017.
    1. Lee KT, Mun GH. A systematic review of functional donor-site morbidity after latissimus dorsi muscle transfer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134:303–314. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000000365.
    1. Giordano S, Kaariainen K, Alavaikko J, Kaistila T, Kuokkanen H. Latissimus dorsi free flap harvesting may affect the shoulder joint in long run. Scand J Surg. 2011;100:202–207. doi: 10.1177/145749691110000312.
    1. Pusic A, Klassen A, Cano S: BREAST-Q - Latissimus dorsi module (preoperative & postoperative) version 2.0 Satistfaction with back appearace conversion table. Memorian Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the University of British Columbia, New York, NY, USA and Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2017.
    1. Pusic A, Klassen A, Cano S: BREAST-Q—Latissimus dorsi module (preoperative and postoperative) version 2.0 satisfaction with shoulder and back function. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and the University of British Columbia, New York, NY, USA and Vancouver, BC, Canada; 2017.
    1. Lo IK, Griffin S, Kirkley A. The development of a disease-specific quality of life measurement tool for osteoarthritis of the shoulder: the Western Ontario Osteoarthritis of the Shoulder (WOOS) index. Osteoarthr Cartil. 2001;9:771–778. doi: 10.1053/joca.2001.0474.
    1. Klintberg IH, Lind K, Marlow T, Svantesson U. Western Ontario Osteoarthritis Shoulder (WOOS) index: a cross-cultural adaptation into Swedish, including evaluation of reliability, validity, and responsiveness in patients with subacromial pain. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2012;21:1698–1705. doi: 10.1016/j.jse.2011.11.027.
    1. Wild D, Grove A, Martin M, Eremenco S, McElroy S, Verjee-Lorenz A, Erikson P. ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation: principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value Health. 2005;8:94–104. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.04054.x.
    1. Linguistic validation guidance of the BREAST-Q. Lyon, France: Mapi Research Trust; 2017.
    1. Martin CR, Martin CJH. Minimum sample size requirements for a validation study of the birth satisfaction scale-revised (BSS-R) J Nurs Pract. 2017;1:25–30.
    1. Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, de Vet HC. Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012.
    1. Cronbach L. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334. doi: 10.1007/BF02310555.
    1. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53–55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd.
    1. Cano S, Chrea C, Salzberger T, Alfieri T, Emilien G, Mainy N, Ramazzotti A, Ludicke F, Weitkunat R. Development and validation of a new instrument to measure perceived risks associated with the use of tobacco and nicotine-containing products. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:192. doi: 10.1186/s12955-018-0997-5.
    1. de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Ostelo RW, Beckerman H, Knol DL, Bouter LM. Minimal changes in health status questionnaires: distinction between minimally detectable change and minimally important change. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006;4:54. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-4-54.
    1. Terwee CB, Dekker FW, Wiersinga WM, Prummel MF, Bossuyt PM. On assessing responsiveness of health-related quality of life instruments: guidelines for instrument evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2003;12:349–362. doi: 10.1023/A:1023499322593.
    1. Shrout PE, Fleiss JL. Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychol Bull. 1979;86:420–428. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.86.2.420.
    1. Koo TK, Li MY. A guideline of selecting and reporting intraclass correlation coefficients for reliability research. J Chiropr Med. 2016;15:155–163. doi: 10.1016/j.jcm.2016.02.012.
    1. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet. 1986;1:307–310. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8.
    1. McHorney CA, Tarlov AR. Individual-patient monitoring in clinical practice: are available health status surveys adequate? Qual Life Res. 1995;4:293–307. doi: 10.1007/BF01593882.
    1. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2. Hillsdale: Erlbaum; 1988.
    1. Haimovitz D, Lansky LM, O'Reilly P. Fluctuations in body satisfaction across situations. Int J Eat Disord. 1993;13:77–84. doi: 10.1002/1098-108X(199301)13:1<77::AID-EAT2260130110>;2-N.
    1. Claessen FM, Mellema JJ, Stoop N, Lubberts B, Ring D, Poolman RW. Influence of priming on patient-reported outcome measures: a randomized controlled trial. Psychosomatics. 2016;57:47–56. doi: 10.1016/j.psym.2015.09.005.
    1. Vranceanu AM, Elbon M, Ring D. The emotive impact of orthopedic words. J Hand Ther. 2011;24:112–116. doi: 10.1016/j.jht.2010.10.010.
    1. Giraudeau B, Ravaud P, Chastang C. Importance of reproducibility in responsiveness issues. Biom J. 1998;40:685–701. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1521-4036(199810)40:6<685::AID-BIMJ685>;2-8.
    1. Hattie J, Cooksey RW. Procedures for assessing the validities of tests using the “known-groups” methods. Appl Psychol Meas. 1984;8:295–305. doi: 10.1177/014662168400800306.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe