OBJECTIVES When migrating existing patient-reported outcome measures to electronic data capture technologies, it is critically important that the new modes of administration provide comparable results to the original. The objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement equivalence of an interactive voice response (IVR) version to the original paper-based version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS The QLQ-C30 is a cancer-specific health-related quality of life measure consisting of nine multi-item scales (physical, role, emotional cognitive and social functioning, fatigue, emesis and global health/quality of life) and six single item measures (dyspnoea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhoea, and financial problems). This study utilized a crossover design with subjects randomly assigned to one of two assessment orders: 1) paper then IVR, or 2) IVR then paper. Cancer patients receiving treatment on an outpatient basis (n=139) were asked to complete each assessment two days apart. Equivalence between the two administration modes was established by comparing the 95% lower confidence interval (CI) of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each scale, with a critical value of 0.70. RESULTS The ICCs for the nine multi-item scales were all above 0.79, ranging from 0.791 to 0.899 (ICC 95% lower CI range: 0.726 to 0.865), and significantly different from our threshold reliability of 0.70. The ICCs for the six single items ranged from 0.689 to 0.896 (ICC 95% lower CI range: 0.611 to 0.888). Two of the items, insomnia and appetite loss, were not statistically different from 0.70. Thus, we do not denote equivalence based on the ICCs for these two items. However, when taken together, the results support the equivalence of the scores between the paper and IVR versions of the QLQ-C30. CONCLUSIONS This analysis provides evidence that the scores obtained from the IVR version of the QLQ-C30 are equivalent to those obtained with the original paper version.