PURPOSE: Cancer survivors frequently experience worry about a variety of topics, including fear of recurrence. However, general measures of worry still require examination of reliability for this vulnerable population. This study utilized modern psychometric methods to examine the reliability of a worry measure in women with breast or gynecologic cancer. METHODS: Women with cancer (n = 332) completed the 16-item Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), which has an abbreviated 8-item version (PSWQ-A). Categorical confirmatory factor analysis (CCFA) was used to determine the factor structure and item response theory (IRT) was used to examine score reliability. RESULTS: CCFA supported a two-factor structure with 11 positively worded items and the 5 negatively worded items loading on different factors. IRT analysis of the 11 positively worded items showed that each was contributing meaningful information to the overall scores. The 11 positively worded items and the PSWQ-A produced the most reliable scores for levels of worry ranging from one θ below to two θ above the mean. CONCLUSIONS: The 11 positively worded items of the PSWQ and the 8-item PSWQ-A were suitable for use in cancer patients while the full PSWQ was unsuitable due to inclusion of the negatively worded items. Future research should consider measuring worry when examining distress in cancer survivors.
PURPOSE:Cancer survivors frequently experience worry about a variety of topics, including fear of recurrence. However, general measures of worry still require examination of reliability for this vulnerable population. This study utilized modern psychometric methods to examine the reliability of a worry measure in women with breast or gynecologic cancer. METHODS:Women with cancer (n = 332) completed the 16-item Penn State Worry Questionnaire (PSWQ), which has an abbreviated 8-item version (PSWQ-A). Categorical confirmatory factor analysis (CCFA) was used to determine the factor structure and item response theory (IRT) was used to examine score reliability. RESULTS: CCFA supported a two-factor structure with 11 positively worded items and the 5 negatively worded items loading on different factors. IRT analysis of the 11 positively worded items showed that each was contributing meaningful information to the overall scores. The 11 positively worded items and the PSWQ-A produced the most reliable scores for levels of worry ranging from one θ below to two θ above the mean. CONCLUSIONS: The 11 positively worded items of the PSWQ and the 8-item PSWQ-A were suitable for use in cancerpatients while the full PSWQ was unsuitable due to inclusion of the negatively worded items. Future research should consider measuring worry when examining distress in cancer survivors.
Authors: Annet Kleiboer; Frances Bennett; Laura Hodges; Jane Walker; Parvez Thekkumpurath; Michael Sharpe Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2011-01 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Ronald C Kessler; Patricia Berglund; Olga Demler; Robert Jin; Kathleen R Merikangas; Ellen E Walters Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2005-06
Authors: Gavin Andrews; Megan J Hobbs; Thomas D Borkovec; Katja Beesdo; Michelle G Craske; Richard G Heimberg; Ronald M Rapee; Ayelet Meron Ruscio; Melinda A Stanley Journal: Depress Anxiety Date: 2010-02 Impact factor: 6.505
Authors: Lahiru Russell; Anna Ugalde; Donna Milne; Meinir Krishnasamy; Eric O Seung Chul; David W Austin; Richard Chambers; Liliana Orellana; Patricia M Livingston Journal: Trials Date: 2018-04-13 Impact factor: 2.279
Authors: James Weatherall; Yurek Paprocki; Theresa M Meyer; Ian Kudel; Edward A Witt Journal: JMIR Mhealth Uhealth Date: 2018-06-05 Impact factor: 4.773
Authors: Lucy Finkelstein-Fox; Autumn W Rasmussen; Daniel L Hall; Giselle K Perez; Amy H Comander; Jeffrey Peppercorn; Reid Anctil; Cathy Wang; Elyse R Park Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-06 Impact factor: 3.359