Rebecca Saracino1, Elissa Kolva1, Barry Rosenfeld1, William Breitbart2. 1. Department of Psychology,Fordham University,Bronx,New York. 2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center,New York,New York.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To date, no measure of social support has been developed specifically for either palliative care or oncology settings. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Duke-University of North Carolina Functional Social Support Questionnaire (DUFSS) in order to (1) assess the adequacy of the scale in the context of severe medical illness and (2) evaluate whether a brief subset of items might generate roughly comparable utility. METHOD: The 14-item DUFSS was administered to 1,362 individuals with advanced cancer or AIDS. Classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) analyses were utilized to develop an abbreviated version of the DUFSS that maintained adequate reliability and validity and might increase the feasibility of its administration in a palliative care setting. The reliability and concurrent validity of the DUFSS-5 were evaluated in a separate validation sample of patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Analyses generated a five-item version of the DUFSS (the DUFSS-5) that collapsed response levels into only three options, instead of five. Correlations between the DUFSS-5 and measures of depression, quality of life, and desire for hastened death, as well as regression models testing the main-effect and buffering models of social support, provided support for the utility of the DUFSS-5. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Both the DUFSS and the abbreviated DUFSS-5 appear to have adequate reliability and validity in this setting. Moreover, the DUFSS-5 represents a potentially important option for healthcare researchers, particularly for those working in palliative care settings where issues of patient burden are paramount. Such analyses are critical for advancing the development and refinement of psychosocial measures, but have often been neglected.
OBJECTIVE: To date, no measure of social support has been developed specifically for either palliative care or oncology settings. The present study examined the psychometric properties of the Duke-University of North Carolina Functional Social Support Questionnaire (DUFSS) in order to (1) assess the adequacy of the scale in the context of severe medical illness and (2) evaluate whether a brief subset of items might generate roughly comparable utility. METHOD: The 14-item DUFSS was administered to 1,362 individuals with advanced cancer or AIDS. Classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) analyses were utilized to develop an abbreviated version of the DUFSS that maintained adequate reliability and validity and might increase the feasibility of its administration in a palliative care setting. The reliability and concurrent validity of the DUFSS-5 were evaluated in a separate validation sample of patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Analyses generated a five-item version of the DUFSS (the DUFSS-5) that collapsed response levels into only three options, instead of five. Correlations between the DUFSS-5 and measures of depression, quality of life, and desire for hastened death, as well as regression models testing the main-effect and buffering models of social support, provided support for the utility of the DUFSS-5. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Both the DUFSS and the abbreviated DUFSS-5 appear to have adequate reliability and validity in this setting. Moreover, the DUFSS-5 represents a potentially important option for healthcare researchers, particularly for those working in palliative care settings where issues of patient burden are paramount. Such analyses are critical for advancing the development and refinement of psychosocial measures, but have often been neglected.
Entities:
Keywords:
Item response theory; Palliative care; Social support
Authors: Candyce H Kroenke; Laura D Kubzansky; Eva S Schernhammer; Michelle D Holmes; Ichiro Kawachi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Hayley Pessin; Michele Galietta; Christian J Nelson; Robert Brescia; Barry Rosenfeld; William Breitbart Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2008-05 Impact factor: 2.947
Authors: R K Portenoy; H T Thaler; A B Kornblith; J M Lepore; H Friedlander-Klar; E Kiyasu; K Sobel; N Coyle; N Kemeny; L Norton Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1994 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Lisa Scarton; Luciana E Hebert; R Turner Goins; Jason G Umans; Luohua Jiang; Ashley Comiford; Sixia Chen; Ashley White; Tara Ritter; Spero M Manson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-04-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Susanne Mattsson; Erik Martin Gustaf Olsson; Sven Alfonsson; Birgitta Johansson; Maria Carlsson Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2015-11-20 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Timothy N Hembree; Sarah Thirlwell; Richard R Reich; Smitha Pabbathi; Martine Extermann; Asha Ramsakal Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2019-09-07 Impact factor: 4.452