Background: Cross-culturally adapted questionnaires may not be comparable to their original version.
Objects: To examine concurrent validity of two health-related quality of life (HRQOL) instruments for the Korean versions of EuroQOL-5 Dimension (EQ-5D) and the abbreviated version of the World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL-BREF) instrument.
Methods: A total of 139 cancer survivors from two rehabilitation institutes was recruited. All participants were registered for palliative rehabilitation care. Both instruments were concurrently administered by health care providers following the second bout of the rehabilitation cares. Rasch partial credit model and Spearman’s correlation analysis were used to investigate: 1) dimensionality, 2) hierarchical item difficulty, and 3) concurrent validity using correlations between two instruments.
Results: For the WHOQOL-BREF, all items except negative feeling, pain, dependence of medical aid, were found to be acceptable, while all items of EQ-5D were acceptable. There was an evidence of negative correlations between EQ-5D and 4 domains of WHOQOL-BREF. Two correlations were strong (EQ-5D vs. physical health domain, ρ = –0.610, 95% CI = –0.716 to –0.475) and moderate (EQ-5D vs. psychosocial domain, ρ = –0.402, 95% CI = –0.546 to –0.236). Other two correlations were weak (EQ-5D vs. social relationship and environmental domains, ρ = –0.242, 95% CI = –0.401 to –0.075 and ρ = –0.364, 95% CI = –0.514 to –0.207, respectively). Item difficulty calibrations of the two measurements were ranged from –0.84 to 0.86 for the EQ-5D and –1.07 to 1.06 for the WHOQOL-BREF.
Conclusion: The study provides some supports for the concurrent validity of the two Korean versions of HRQOL instrument, with evidences of weak to strong correlations between the EQ- 5D and four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF applied to various cancer survivors. Additionally, the cancer survivors appeared to have more of a tendency to view the EQ-5D items as being slightly more challenging than the WHOQOL-BREF items.

INTRODUCTION
MATERIALS AND METHODS
    1. Instrumentation
    2. Subjects
    3. Data Analysis
RESULTS
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSIONS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
REFERENCES

• Bongsam Choi(Department of Physical Therapy, College of Health and Welfare, Woosong University, Daejeon, Korea) Corresponding Author