Table 3 Studies examining the psychometric properties of the EPIC-26 since 2012
Study (reference) | Psychometric findings |
|---|---|
Korzeniowski et al. 2016 [16] | Informative and useful for patient communication as judged by clinicians |
Sharma et al. 2016 [17] | Good feasibility both on paper and electronically |
Skolarus et al. 2012 [18] | Good feasibility both on paper and automatic telephone response |
Sampurno et al. 2015 [19] | Good feasibility both on paper and interactive voice method |
Fosså et al. 2016 [20] | Internal consistencies alpha 0.64–0.91 of the 5 domains |
Skolarus et al. 2012 [18] | Good test-retest reliability |
Sampurno et al. 2015 [19] | Good test-retest reliability |
Ellison et al. 2013 [21] | Criterion validity with the Incontinence Severity Index |
Fosså et al. 2016 [20] | Criterion validity with the International Prostate Symptom Score |
Punnen et al. 2013 [22] | Convergent validity of urinary and sexual bother scores and Generalized Anxiety Disorders Screener (GAD-7) and Distress Thermometer, and sexual bother with Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (depression) |
Evans et al. 2015 [23] | Convergent validity with the SF-12 (quality of life) |
Watson et al. 2015 [24] | Convergent validity of urine and bowel domains with health (EQ-5D-5 L), unmet needs (SCNS-SF34), anxiety/depression (HADS), and self-efficacy (Cancer Survivors Self Efficacy Scale) |
Schofield et al. 2012 [25] | Divergent validity with unmet needs (SCNF-SF 34) |
Evans et al. 2015 [23] | Predictive validity with the SF-12 (quality of life) |
Recklitis et al. 2014 [26] | Predictive validity of hormonal subscale score and more suicidal ideation |
Evans et al. 2015 [23] | Responsiveness to change (minimally important differences) |
Skolarus et al. 2015 [27] | Responsiveness to change (minimally important differences) |
Tavlarides et al. 2015 [28] | Responsiveness to change documented |
Fosså et al. 2016 [20] | Responsiveness to change documented |