Research brief © 2005 Blackwell Publishing Ltd European Journal of Cancer Care, 2005, 14, 463–464 Conversion of the Caregiver Quality of Life Index to an interview instrument K. COURTNEY, rn, msn, Department of Health Management and Informatics and Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, G. DEMIRIS, phd , Department of Health Management and Infor- matics, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA, D.P. OLIVER, msw, phd , School of Social Work, University of Missouri, Columbia, USA, & D. POROCK, rn, phd , School of Nursing, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK COURTNEY K., DEMIRIS G., OLIVER D.P. & POROCK D. (2005) European Journal of Cancer Care 14 , 463–464 Conversion of the Caregiver Quality of Life Index to an interview instrument Correspondence address: Karen Courtney, Department of Health Manage- ment and Informatics and Sinclair School of Nursing, University of Mis- souri – Columbia, 324 Clark Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA (e-mail: courtneyKL@health.missouri.edu). Accepted 10 June 2005 DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2354.2005.00612.x INTRODUCTION Recent hospice literature has begun to focus on the nega- tive effects of the caregiving role on the quality of life (QOL) of hospice patient caregivers. The Missouri Tele- hospice Project is currently investigating the effects of communication technology (telehospice) to improve hos- pice caregiver QOL. This research brief is a small part of a larger telehospice study examining the effects of video- phone technology on hospice caregiver QOL. Because of the wide geographical coverage area for the larger telehos- pice project, potentially some caregiver assessments may also be telephone-based (Demiris et al. 2004). For its brev- ity (four items) and previously established reliability and validity, the Caregiver Quality of Life Index (CQLI) was chosen to measure caregiver QOL (McMillan & Mahon 1994). AIMS The aim of this component of the research plan was to establish the reliability of the CQLI instrument in a new verbal interview format using a 0–10 scale rather than the 100-mm visual analogue scale. METHODS An interview CQLI version was developed by using iden- tical items from the paper-based CQLI and replacing the visual analogue response format with a 0–10 response scale. The anchors and their descriptors were the same for both versions. The revised interview version protocol included the research assistant reading the instrument aloud to the participants. Following a human subjects protection review by the University of Missouri Health Sciences Institutional Review Board (IRB), a convenience sample of 25 healthy adult participants were recruited from an academic set- ting. After verbal consent, each participant was asked to complete the paper-based CQLI instrument which included the 100-mm visual analogue scale for responses. Following completion of the paper CQLI, the research assistant administered the interview CQLI and recorded participant responses using the 0–10 scale in a handheld computer. After the initial session (time 1), this procedure was repeated for each participant at least one hour later (time 2). FINDINGS The CQLI reliability was measured for test-retest stabil- ity, internal consistency and stability between versions. Both paper and interview versions performed well in all three reliability measures. Test-retest reliability was comparable for both versions. The paper version demonstrated excellent test-retest reli- ability ( r = 0.944, P < 0.001) for the total score as well as Blackwell Science, LtdOxford, UKEJCCEuropean Journal of Cancer Care0961-5423Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 200514 5463464Short CommunicationCQLI conversionCOURTNEY et al.