OBJECTIVE: Screening for psychological distress is an important tool for improving survivors' access to psychosocial care. The Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) has been widely used to identify psychological distress in cancer survivors, but few studies have reported on its validity. This study evaluated validity of the BSI-18 by comparing it to the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). METHODS: Concordance of cases identified by the BSI-18 and SCL-90 was examined in a sample of 193 adult survivors of childhood cancer. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed strong diagnostic utility of the BSI-18 (area under curve = 0.922). However, the standard BSI-18 case-rule demonstrated low sensitivity (45.2%) against the SCL-90. An alternative case-rule showed better results; sensitivity (87.10%), specificity (83.33%). CONCLUSIONS: The BSI-18 is a useful measure for evaluating distress in adult survivors of childhood cancers; however, the standard BSI-18 case-rule has not been validated for this population, and an alternative case rule should be considered.
OBJECTIVE: Screening for psychological distress is an important tool for improving survivors' access to psychosocial care. The Brief Symptom Inventory-18 (BSI-18) has been widely used to identify psychological distress in cancer survivors, but few studies have reported on its validity. This study evaluated validity of the BSI-18 by comparing it to the Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90). METHODS: Concordance of cases identified by the BSI-18 and SCL-90 was examined in a sample of 193 adult survivors of childhood cancer. RESULTS: Receiver operating characteristics analysis showed strong diagnostic utility of the BSI-18 (area under curve = 0.922). However, the standard BSI-18 case-rule demonstrated low sensitivity (45.2%) against the SCL-90. An alternative case-rule showed better results; sensitivity (87.10%), specificity (83.33%). CONCLUSIONS: The BSI-18 is a useful measure for evaluating distress in adult survivors of childhood cancers; however, the standard BSI-18 case-rule has not been validated for this population, and an alternative case rule should be considered.
Authors: Kathryn L Van Pelt; C Dain Allred; Rachel Brodeur; Kenneth L Cameron; Darren E Campbell; Christopher J D'Lauro; Xuming He; Megan N Houston; Brian R Johnson; Tim F Kelly; Gerald McGinty; Sean K Meehan; Patrick G O'Donnell; Karen Y Peck; Steven J Svoboda; Paul Pasquina; Thomas McAllister; Michael McCrea; Steven P Broglio Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Norma Mammone D'Agostino; Kim Edelstein; Nan Zhang; Christopher J Recklitis; Tara M Brinkman; Deokumar Srivastava; Wendy M Leisenring; Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; Kevin R Krull Journal: Cancer Date: 2016-07-08 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: P Jimenez-Fonseca; C Calderón; R Hernández; T Ramón Y Cajal; M Mut; A Ramchandani; O Donnay; A Carmona-Bayonas Journal: Clin Transl Oncol Date: 2018-04-12 Impact factor: 3.405
Authors: Giselle K Perez; Anne C Kirchhoff; Christopher Recklitis; Kevin R Krull; Karen A Kuhlthau; Paul C Nathan; Julia Rabin; Gregory T Armstrong; Wendy Leisenring; Leslie L Robison; Elyse R Park Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2018-04-15 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Sarah R Brand; Christine Chordas; Cori Liptak; Peter Manley; Christopher Recklitis Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: E Anne Lown; Farya Phillips; Lisa A Schwartz; Abby R Rosenberg; Barbara Jones Journal: Pediatr Blood Cancer Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 3.167