Abstract
Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) instruments are increasingly important in evaluating health care, especially in cancer trials. When planning a trial, one essential step is the calculation of a sample size, which will allow a reasonable chance (power) of detecting a pre-specified difference (effect size) at a given level of statistical significance. It is almost mandatory to include this calculation in research protocols. Many researchers quote means and standard deviations to determine effect sizes, and assume the data will have a Normal distribution to calculate their required sample size. We have investigated the distribution of scores for two commonly used HRQoL instruments completed by lung cancer patients, and have established that scores do not have the Normal distribution form. We demonstrate that an assumption of Normality can lead to unrealistically sized studies. Our recommendation is to use a technique that is based on the fact that the HRQoL data are ordinal and makes minimal but realistic assumptions. © 2000 Cancer Research Campaign
Keywords: Health Related Quality of Life, cancer, samples size, effect size
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (64.7 KB).
Selected References
These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
- Campbell M. J., Julious S. A., Altman D. G. Estimating sample sizes for binary, ordered categorical, and continuous outcomes in two group comparisons. BMJ. 1995 Oct 28;311(7013):1145–1148. doi: 10.1136/bmj.311.7013.1145. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Fayers P. M., Machin D. Sample size: how many patients are necessary? Br J Cancer. 1995 Jul;72(1):1–9. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1995.268. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Julious S. A., George S., Campbell M. J. Sample sizes for studies using the short form 36 (SF-36) J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995 Dec;49(6):642–644. doi: 10.1136/jech.49.6.642. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Julious S. A., George S., Machin D., Stephens R. J. Sample sizes for randomized trials measuring quality of life in cancer patients. Qual Life Res. 1997 Mar;6(2):109–117. doi: 10.1023/a:1026481815304. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Moorey S., Greer S., Watson M., Gorman C., Rowden L., Tunmore R., Robertson B., Bliss J. The factor structure and factor stability of the hospital anxiety and depression scale in patients with cancer. Br J Psychiatry. 1991 Feb;158:255–259. doi: 10.1192/bjp.158.2.255. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Whitehead J. Sample size calculations for ordered categorical data. Stat Med. 1993 Dec 30;12(24):2257–2271. doi: 10.1002/sim.4780122404. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- Zigmond A. S., Snaith R. P. The hospital anxiety and depression scale. Acta Psychiatr Scand. 1983 Jun;67(6):361–370. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.1983.tb09716.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- de Haes J. C., van Knippenberg F. C., Neijt J. P. Measuring psychological and physical distress in cancer patients: structure and application of the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Br J Cancer. 1990 Dec;62(6):1034–1038. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1990.434. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- de Haes J. C., van Knippenberg F. C. The quality of life of cancer patients: a review of the literature. Soc Sci Med. 1985;20(8):809–817. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(85)90335-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]