PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-developed colorectal cancer screening questionnaire. METHODS: We conducted 36 cognitive interviews and made iterative changes to the questionnaire to improve comprehension. The revised questionnaire was administered face-to-face to 201 participants. The primary outcome was agreement between questionnaire responses and medical records for whether or not a participant was up-to-date for any colorectal cancer screening test. RESULTS: Comprehension of descriptions and questions was generally good; however, the barium enema description required several revisions. The sensitivity of the questionnaire for up-to-date screening status was 94%, specificity 63%, and concordance 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The modified questionnaire was highly sensitive for determining if a person was up-to-date for any colorectal cancer screening test, although the specificity was low. Given the difficulty of obtaining all relevant records, self-report using this questionnaire is a reasonable option for identifying people who have undergone testing.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-developed colorectal cancer screening questionnaire. METHODS: We conducted 36 cognitive interviews and made iterative changes to the questionnaire to improve comprehension. The revised questionnaire was administered face-to-face to 201 participants. The primary outcome was agreement between questionnaire responses and medical records for whether or not a participant was up-to-date for any colorectal cancer screening test. RESULTS: Comprehension of descriptions and questions was generally good; however, the barium enema description required several revisions. The sensitivity of the questionnaire for up-to-date screening status was 94%, specificity 63%, and concordance 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The modified questionnaire was highly sensitive for determining if a person was up-to-date for any colorectal cancer screening test, although the specificity was low. Given the difficulty of obtaining all relevant records, self-report using this questionnaire is a reasonable option for identifying people who have undergone testing.
Authors: Sally W Vernon; Helen Meissner; Carrie Klabunde; Barbara K Rimer; Dennis J Ahnen; Roshan Bastani; Margaret T Mandelson; Marion R Nadel; Sherri Sheinfeld-Gorin; Jane Zapka Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: M Baier; N Calonge; G Cutter; M McClatchey; S Schoentgen; S Hines; A Marcus; D Ahnen Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2000-02 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Sidney Winawer; Robert Fletcher; Douglas Rex; John Bond; Randall Burt; Joseph Ferrucci; Theodore Ganiats; Theodore Levin; Steven Woolf; David Johnson; Lynne Kirk; Scott Litin; Clifford Simmang Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2003-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Michael S Wolf; Alfred Rademaker; Charles L Bennett; M Rosario Ferreira; Nancy C Dolan; Terry C Davis; Franklin Medio; Dachao Liu; June Lee; Marian Fitzgibbon Journal: Prev Chronic Dis Date: 2005-03-15 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: Lena B Palmer; David H Abbott; Natia Hamilton; Dawn Provenzale; Deborah A Fisher Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2010-06-29 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Maida J Sewitch; Dara Stein; Lawrence Joseph; Alain Bitton; Robert J Hilsden; Linda Rabeneck; Lawrence Paszat; Jill Tinmouth; Mary Anne Cooper Journal: Can J Gastroenterol Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.522
Authors: Po-Hong Liu; Nina N Sanford; Peter S Liang; Amit G Singal; Caitlin C Murphy Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2022-09-02 Impact factor: 4.090