Raheem J Paxton1, Yong Gao2, Stephen D Herrmann3, Gregory J Norman4. 1. University of North Texas Health Science Center, School of Public Health, Department of Behavioral and Community Health, Fort Worth, TX, USA. Raheem.Paxton@UNTHSC.edu. 2. Boise State University, Department of Kinesiology, Boise, ID, USA. 3. Sanford Research, Children's Health Research Center, Sioux Falls, SD, USA. 4. University of California at San Diego, Department of Preventive Medicine, San Diego, CA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the validity and reliability of a modified Sedentary Behavior Strategy Self-Management Scale (SBSMS) in a sample of breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A total of 291 African-American (AA) breast cancer survivors completed the SBSMS, which was subjected to tests of reliability, structural validity, and tests of measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I). RESULTS: A revised measurement model fit the data and demonstrated internal reliability and structural validity. Tests for ME/I revealed that the revised model had appropriate levels of invariance among weight status, educational, and years out from diagnosis groups, but not among age groups. CONCLUSION: The reliability and structural validity of the instrument was supported overall; however, revisions may be needed to support its validity in older AA breast cancer survivors.
OBJECTIVES: To examine the validity and reliability of a modified Sedentary Behavior Strategy Self-Management Scale (SBSMS) in a sample of breast cancer survivors. METHODS: A total of 291 African-American (AA) breast cancer survivors completed the SBSMS, which was subjected to tests of reliability, structural validity, and tests of measurement equivalence/invariance (ME/I). RESULTS: A revised measurement model fit the data and demonstrated internal reliability and structural validity. Tests for ME/I revealed that the revised model had appropriate levels of invariance among weight status, educational, and years out from diagnosis groups, but not among age groups. CONCLUSION: The reliability and structural validity of the instrument was supported overall; however, revisions may be needed to support its validity in older AA breast cancer survivors.