PURPOSE: Examine the construct validity, stability, internal consistency, and item-response performance of a self-report health needs assessment for adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS:A 190-item mailed survey was completed by 1,178 randomly selected (stratified on age, diagnosis, time since diagnosis) Childhood Cancer Survivor Study participants (mean age, 39.66 [SD 7.71] years; time since diagnosis, 31.60 [SD 4.71] years). Minorities and rural residents were oversampled at a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS: The final instrument included 135 items comprising nine unidimensional subscales (Psycho-emotional, Health System Concerns, Cancer-Related Health Information, General Health, Survivor Care and Support, Surveillance, Coping, Fiscal Concerns, and Relationships). Confirmatory factor analysis (n = 1,178; RMSEA = 0.020; 90 % CI = 0.019-0.020; CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.955) and person-item fit variable maps established construct validity. Across subscales, Cronbach's alpha was 0.94-0.97, and the 4-week test-retest correlations were 0.52-0.91. In a Rasch analysis, item reliability was 0.97-0.99, person reliability was 0.80-0.90, and separation index scores were 2.00-3.01. Significant subscale covariates of higher need levels included demographics, diagnosis, and treatment exposures. CONCLUSIONS: The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Needs Assessment Questionnaire (CCSS-NAQ) is reliable and construct-valid, has strong item-response properties, and discriminates need levels. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The CCSS-NAQ potentially can be used to: (1) directly assess adult childhood cancer survivors' self-reported health-related needs, (2) identify individuals or subgroups with higher-level needs, (3) inform prevention and direct intervention strategies, and (4) facilitate prioritization of health-care resource allocation.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: Examine the construct validity, stability, internal consistency, and item-response performance of a self-report health needs assessment for adult survivors of childhood cancer. METHODS: A 190-item mailed survey was completed by 1,178 randomly selected (stratified on age, diagnosis, time since diagnosis) Childhood Cancer Survivor Study participants (mean age, 39.66 [SD 7.71] years; time since diagnosis, 31.60 [SD 4.71] years). Minorities and rural residents were oversampled at a 2:1 ratio. RESULTS: The final instrument included 135 items comprising nine unidimensional subscales (Psycho-emotional, Health System Concerns, Cancer-Related Health Information, General Health, Survivor Care and Support, Surveillance, Coping, Fiscal Concerns, and Relationships). Confirmatory factor analysis (n = 1,178; RMSEA = 0.020; 90 % CI = 0.019-0.020; CFI = 0.956; TLI = 0.955) and person-item fit variable maps established construct validity. Across subscales, Cronbach's alpha was 0.94-0.97, and the 4-week test-retest correlations were 0.52-0.91. In a Rasch analysis, item reliability was 0.97-0.99, person reliability was 0.80-0.90, and separation index scores were 2.00-3.01. Significant subscale covariates of higher need levels included demographics, diagnosis, and treatment exposures. CONCLUSIONS: The Childhood Cancer Survivor Study Needs Assessment Questionnaire (CCSS-NAQ) is reliable and construct-valid, has strong item-response properties, and discriminates need levels. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The CCSS-NAQ potentially can be used to: (1) directly assess adult childhood cancer survivors' self-reported health-related needs, (2) identify individuals or subgroups with higher-level needs, (3) inform prevention and direct intervention strategies, and (4) facilitate prioritization of health-care resource allocation.
Authors: Sharon M Castellino; Ann M Geiger; Ann C Mertens; Wendy M Leisenring; Janet A Tooze; Pam Goodman; Marilyn Stovall; Leslie L Robison; Melissa M Hudson Journal: Blood Date: 2010-10-29 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Leslie L Robison; Gregory T Armstrong; John D Boice; Eric J Chow; Stella M Davies; Sarah S Donaldson; Daniel M Green; Sue Hammond; Anna T Meadows; Ann C Mertens; John J Mulvihill; Paul C Nathan; Joseph P Neglia; Roger J Packer; Preetha Rajaraman; Charles A Sklar; Marilyn Stovall; Louise C Strong; Yutaka Yasui; Lonnie K Zeltzer Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-04-13 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Linda C Harlan; Charles F Lynch; Theresa H M Keegan; Ann S Hamilton; Xiao-Cheng Wu; Ikuko Kato; Michele M West; Rosemary D Cress; Stephen M Schwartz; Ashley W Smith; Dennis Deapen; Sonja M Stringer; Arnold L Potosky Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2011-01-28 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Debra L Friedman; John Whitton; Wendy Leisenring; Ann C Mertens; Sue Hammond; Marilyn Stovall; Sarah S Donaldson; Anna T Meadows; Leslie L Robison; Joseph P Neglia Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2010-07-15 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Ann C Mertens; Qi Liu; Joseph P Neglia; Karen Wasilewski; Wendy Leisenring; Gregory T Armstrong; Leslie L Robison; Yutaka Yasui Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2008-09-23 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Gregory T Armstrong; Qi Liu; Yutaka Yasui; Sujuan Huang; Kirsten K Ness; Wendy Leisenring; Melissa M Hudson; Sarah S Donaldson; Allison A King; Marilyn Stovall; Kevin R Krull; Leslie L Robison; Roger J Packer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2009-06-17 Impact factor: 11.816
Authors: Alex W K Wong; Ting-Ting Chang; Katrina Christopher; Stephen C L Lau; Lynda K Beaupin; Brad Love; Kim L Lipsey; Michael Feuerstein Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Cheryl L Cox; Liang Zhu; Rohit P Ojha; Chenghong Li; Deo Kumar Srivastava; Barth B Riley; Melissa M Hudson; Les L Robison Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-02-20 Impact factor: 4.442