Literature DB >> 18768488

Construct validity and invariance of four factors associated with colorectal cancer screening across gender, race, and prior screening.

Amy McQueen1, Jasmin A Tiro, Sally W Vernon.   

Abstract

Understanding individuals' perceptions of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) is important for developing effective interventions to increase adherence to screening guidelines. Theory-based cognitive and psychosocial constructs have been associated with CRCS in the literature, but few studies have evaluated the psychometric properties of such measures. We hypothesized a correlated four-factor model, including CRCS perceived pros, cons, social influence, and self-efficacy. We also examined measurement invariance across subgroups based on gender, race (white; African American), and prior CRCS experience (never; overdue for repeat screening). We used baseline (n = 1,250) and 2-week (n = 1,036) follow-up survey data from participants in a behavioral intervention trial designed to increase CRCS. Only minor modifications were made to the hypothesized model to improve fit, and the final model was confirmed with a random half of the sample, as well as with follow-up data. Results support the hypothesized unidimensional construct measures and suggest that the items may be appropriate for all subgroups examined. Greater variance in responses to items assessing the perceived cons of CRCS was found among African Americans compared with whites, suggesting that race may moderate the association between perceived cons and CRCS in this sample. Pros, cons, social influence, and self-efficacy are associated with CRCS; therefore, using scales with known psychometric properties strengthens researchers' ability to draw conclusions about group differences and changes over time and to compare their results with other studies. Replication studies in other populations are needed to provide further evidence of construct validity for the scales reported here.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18768488      PMCID: PMC2603464          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0176

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  21 in total

Review 1.  Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research.

Authors:  R C MacCallum; J T Austin
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2000       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  The role of theory in HIV prevention.

Authors:  M Fishbein
Journal:  AIDS Care       Date:  2000-06

3.  Screening for colorectal cancer: recommendation and rationale.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 4.  Participation in colorectal cancer screening: a review.

Authors:  S W Vernon
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1997-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Integrating pros and cons for mammography and Pap testing: extending the construct of decisional balance to two behaviors.

Authors:  W Rakowski; M A Clark; D N Pearlman; B Ehrich; B K Rimer; M G Goldstein; C E Dube; H Woolverton
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1997 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Confirmatory analysis of opinions regarding the pros and cons of mammography.

Authors:  W Rakowski; M R Andersen; A M Stoddard; N Urban; B K Rimer; D S Lane; S A Fox; M E Costanza
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 4.267

7.  Progress in cancer screening practices in the United States: results from the 2000 National Health Interview Survey.

Authors:  Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Ralph J Coates; Barbara K Rimer; Nancy C Lee
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-03-15       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  Modeling adherence to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  R E Myers; E Ross; C Jepson; T Wolf; A Balshem; L Millner; H Leventhal
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1994-03       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Intention to be screened over time for colorectal cancer in male automotive workers.

Authors:  Beatty G Watts; Sally W Vernon; Ronald E Myers; Barbara C Tilley
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-04       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 10.  The Health Belief Model: a decade later.

Authors:  N K Janz; M H Becker
Journal:  Health Educ Q       Date:  1984
View more
  41 in total

1.  A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Leona K Bartholomew; Amy McQueen; Judy L Bettencourt; Anthony Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; David Lairson; Wenyaw Chan; S T Hawley; R E Myers
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2011-06

2.  Preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests and screening test use in a large multispecialty primary care practice.

Authors:  Sarah T Hawley; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Anthony J Greisinger; Sharon P Coan; Ronald Myers; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2011-09-21       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  Decisional stage distribution for colorectal cancer screening among diverse, low-income study participants.

Authors:  C M Hester; W K Born; H W Yeh; K L Young; A S James; C M Daley; K A Greiner
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2015-02-25

4.  Effectiveness of a theory-based intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among Iranian health club members: a randomized trial.

Authors:  Hamideh Salimzadeh; Hassan Eftekhar; Reza Majdzadeh; Ali Montazeri; Alireza Delavari
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2013-09-13

5.  'Simple and easy:' providers' and latinos' perceptions of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Claudia X Aguado Loi; Dinorah Martinez Tyson; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Liliana Gutierrez; Lynne Klasko; Stacy Davis; Diana Lopez; Tracy Johns; Cathy D Meade; Clement K Gwede
Journal:  Ethn Health       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 2.772

6.  Understanding lung cancer screening behaviour using path analysis.

Authors:  Lisa Carter-Harris; James E Slaven; Patrick O Monahan; Claire Burke Draucker; Emilee Vode; Susan M Rawl
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2019-09-24       Impact factor: 2.136

7.  The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Resa M Jones; Steven H Woolf; Tina D Cunningham; Robert E Johnson; Alex H Krist; Stephen F Rothemich; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-03-28       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Systems of support to increase colorectal cancer screening and follow-up rates (SOS): design, challenges, and baseline characteristics of trial participants.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; C Y Wang; Kathryn Horner; Sheryl Catz; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon; David Carrell; Jessica Chubak; Cynthia Ko; Sharon Laing; Andy Bogart
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.226

9.  A culturally and linguistically salient pilot intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening among Latinos receiving care in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Authors:  Clement K Gwede; Steven K Sutton; Enmanuel A Chavarria; Liliana Gutierrez; Rania Abdulla; Shannon M Christy; Diana Lopez; Julian Sanchez; Cathy D Meade
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2019-06-01

10.  Longitudinal predictors of colorectal cancer screening among participants in a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Sally W Vernon; Nicole M Haddock; Melissa L Anderson; Jessica Chubak; Beverly B Green
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2014-06-15       Impact factor: 4.018

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.