Literature DB >> 24057575

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

Caitlin C Murphy1, Amy McQueen, L Kay Bartholomew, Deborah J Del Junco, Sharon P Coan, Sally W Vernon.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Few studies have examined the psychometric properties and invariance of scales measuring constructs relevant to colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). We sought to: (i) evaluate the factorial validity of four core constructs associated with CRCS (benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and optimism); and (ii) examine measurement invariance by screening status (currently screened, overdue, never screened).
METHODS: We used baseline survey data from a longitudinal behavioral intervention trial to increase CRCS among U.S. veterans. Respondents were classified as currently screened (n = 3,498), overdue (n = 418), and never screened (n = 1,277). The measurement model was developed using a random half of the sample and then validated with the second half of the sample and the full baseline sample (n = 5,193). Single- and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine measurement invariance by screening status.
RESULTS: The four-factor measurement model demonstrated good fit. Factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual item variance and covariance were invariant when comparing participants never screened and overdue for CRCS, indicating strict measurement invariance. All factor loadings were invariant among the currently screened and overdue groups. Only the benefits scale was invariant across current screeners and never screeners. Non-invariant items were primarily from the barriers scale.
CONCLUSION: Our findings provide additional support for the construct validity of scales of CRCS benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and optimism. A greater understanding of the differences between current and never screeners may improve measurement invariance. IMPACT: Measures of benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and optimism may be used to specify intervention targets and effectively assess change pre- and post-intervention across screening groups. ©2013 AACR.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24057575      PMCID: PMC3858498          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0565

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


  20 in total

Review 1.  Health Behavior Theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction?

Authors:  Seth M Noar; Rick S Zimmerman
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2005-01-04

2.  Commentary: Revitalizing research on health behavior theories.

Authors:  Neil D Weinstein; Alexander J Rothman
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  2005-01-04

3.  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

4.  Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Tom Lehman; Bill Killam; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 2.583

5.  Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test.

Authors:  M F Scheier; C S Carver; M W Bridges
Journal:  J Pers Soc Psychol       Date:  1994-12

6.  Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; William M P Klein; Bill Killam; Tom Lehman; Holly Massett; Andrew N Freedman
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-03-05

Review 7.  Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: an application to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Amy McQueen; Sally W Vernon; Paul R Swank
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2012-02-20       Impact factor: 4.267

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

Authors:  Amy McQueen; Jasmin A Tiro; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology.

Authors:  Bernard Levin; David A Lieberman; Beth McFarland; Robert A Smith; Durado Brooks; Kimberly S Andrews; Chiranjeev Dash; Francis M Giardiello; Seth Glick; Theodore R Levin; Perry Pickhardt; Douglas K Rex; Alan Thorson; Sidney J Winawer
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2008-03-05       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  What would make getting colorectal cancer screening easier? Perspectives from screeners and nonscreeners.

Authors:  Gilda G Medina; Amy McQueen; Anthony J Greisinger; L Kay Bartholomew; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Gastroenterol Res Pract       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 2.260

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Deborah J Del Junco; Sharon P Coan; Caitlin C Murphy; Scott T Walters; Robert H Friedman; Lori A Bastian; Deborah A Fisher; David R Lairson; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 2.261

3.  Underuse of surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Carmen L Lewis; Carol E Golin; Robert S Sandler
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2014-11-11       Impact factor: 10.864

4.  The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Samuel G Smith; Rosalind Raine; Austin Obichere; Michael S Wolf; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2014-09-25

5.  Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers.

Authors:  S G Smith; L M McGregor; R Raine; J Wardle; C von Wagner; K A Robb
Journal:  Psychooncology       Date:  2016-07-14       Impact factor: 3.894

6.  Financial Incentives to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake and Decrease Disparities: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Kilian J Kimbel; Jeffrey T Kullgren; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2019-07-03

7.  Psychometric properties of a Chinese version of four-factor colorectal cancer screening belief scale.

Authors:  Liu Yang; Rui Zhao; Shan Li; Chaona Ji; Jiexiong Qin; Yalan Song; Xiaodan Wu
Journal:  Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs       Date:  2022-05-15
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.