Literature DB >> 18990772

Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening in Ontario, Canada--a replication study.

Paul Ritvo1, Ronald Myers, M L Del Giudice, Larry Pazsat, Peter T Campbell, R I Howlett, Verna Mai, Terry Sullivan, Jasmin Tiro, Linda Rabeneck.   

Abstract

Psychosocial constructs have been used to predict colorectal cancer screening and are frequently targeted as intermediate outcomes in behavioral intervention studies. Few studies have conducted analyses to adequately test construct validity. The psychometric analyses undertaken with U.S. populations of 16 theory-based, colorectal cancer screening items designed to measure five factors (salience-coherence, cancer worries, perceived susceptibility, response efficacy, and social influence) are an exception. The current investigation replicates previous work by examining factor validity and invariance in a random sample of Ontario, Canada residents. A survey instrument was administered to 1,013 Ontario male (49%) and female (51%) residents randomly selected by the Canada Survey Sample. Single-group confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) assessed data fit to the proposed five-factor model for males and females separately, and then a multigroup CFA evaluated if the factor structure was invariant for men and women. The five-factor model provided good fit for both males and females. Tests for factorial invariance between sexes, however, found mixed results. chi2 difference test was significant (P = 0.025); however, DeltaRMSEA = 0.0001. Factor loadings were similar by sex except for two social influence items, with item frequency distributions suggesting an extreme response style, in females, on these items. Overall, the single-group and multigroup CFA results support factorial validity and partial invariance of the five-factor model first identified in the U.S. populations. The items can be used to evaluate and compare psychosocial correlates across U.S. and Canadian samples. Additional research is needed to show invariance for other ethnocultural and national subgroups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18990772     DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0241

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


  16 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.  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

3.  Are male and female responses to social phobia diagnostic criteria comparable?

Authors:  Erica Crome; Andrew Baillie; Alan Taylor
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2012-08-13       Impact factor: 4.035

Review 4.  Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Rebecca Anhang Price; Caroline Cranos; Robin Yabroff
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

5.  Factorial validity and invariance of four psychosocial constructs of colorectal cancer screening: does screening experience matter?

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Amy McQueen; L Kay Bartholomew; Deborah J Del Junco; Sharon P Coan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2013-09-20       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  Examining the role of perceived susceptibility on colorectal cancer screening intention and behavior.

Authors:  Amy McQueen; Sally W Vernon; Alexander J Rothman; Gregory J Norman; Ronald E Myers; Barbara C Tilley
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2010-10

7.  Patient Beliefs About Colon Cancer Screening.

Authors:  John W Ely; Barcey T Levy; Jeanette Daly; Yinghui Xu
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 2.037

8.  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

9.  Reactions to Recommendations and Evidence About Prostate Cancer Screening Among White and Black Male Veterans.

Authors:  Elisheva R Danan; Katie M White; Timothy J Wilt; Melissa R Partin
Journal:  Am J Mens Health       Date:  2021 May-Jun

10.  Decision Support and the Effectiveness of Web-based Delivery and Information Tailoring for Bowel Cancer Screening: An Exploratory Study.

Authors:  Ingrid H Flight; Carlene J Wilson; Ian T Zajac; Elizabeth Hart; Jane A McGillivray
Journal:  JMIR Res Protoc       Date:  2012-09-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.