Qingmei Huang1, Ping Jiang1, Zijun Zhang1, Jie Luo1, Yun Dai1, Li Zheng1, Wei Wang2. 1. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003, China. 2. Department of Urology, The First Affiliated Hospital, College of Medicine, Zhejiang University, 79 Qingchun Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310003, China. wangw2002@163.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) was developed to identify and assess cancer-specific anxiety among men with prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is no Chinese version. The aim of our study was to translate the English version of MAX-PC into Chinese and evaluate the psychometric properties of it. METHODS: The study cohort comprised 254 participants. Internal consistency including the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and item-total correlations were used to measure the reliability of the scale. Factor structure was analyzed by exploratory factor analysis and concurrent validity by comparing MAX-PC scores with anxiety subscale scores of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Divergent validity was assessed by correlating MAX-PC with HADS depression subscale, while discriminant ability by comparing differences in MAX-PC scores between different patient groups. RESULTS: The Chinese version of MAX-PC demonstrated good reliability; the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total and three subscales (prostate cancer anxiety, PSA anxiety, and fear of recurrence) being 0.94, 0.93, 0.82, and 0.85, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the scale established in the original version. Despite the somewhat underperformed divergent validity, the scale demonstrated good concurrent validity with a strong correlation with the HADS anxiety subscale (r = 0.71, p < 0.01). Moreover, discriminant ability was demonstrated by ability to differentiate between disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: The MAX-PC Chinese version was confirmed to be a valid, reliable instrument and is thus appropriate for identifying and quantifying cancer-specific anxiety in Chinese PCa patients.
PURPOSE: The Memorial Anxiety Scale for Prostate Cancer (MAX-PC) was developed to identify and assess cancer-specific anxiety among men with prostate cancer (PCa); however, there is no Chinese version. The aim of our study was to translate the English version of MAX-PC into Chinese and evaluate the psychometric properties of it. METHODS: The study cohort comprised 254 participants. Internal consistency including the Cronbach's alpha coefficient and item-total correlations were used to measure the reliability of the scale. Factor structure was analyzed by exploratory factor analysis and concurrent validity by comparing MAX-PC scores with anxiety subscale scores of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). Divergent validity was assessed by correlating MAX-PC with HADS depression subscale, while discriminant ability by comparing differences in MAX-PC scores between different patient groups. RESULTS: The Chinese version of MAX-PC demonstrated good reliability; the Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the total and three subscales (prostate cancer anxiety, PSA anxiety, and fear of recurrence) being 0.94, 0.93, 0.82, and 0.85, respectively. Exploratory factor analysis supported the three-factor structure of the scale established in the original version. Despite the somewhat underperformed divergent validity, the scale demonstrated good concurrent validity with a strong correlation with the HADS anxiety subscale (r = 0.71, p < 0.01). Moreover, discriminant ability was demonstrated by ability to differentiate between disease stages. CONCLUSIONS: The MAX-PC Chinese version was confirmed to be a valid, reliable instrument and is thus appropriate for identifying and quantifying cancer-specific anxiety in Chinese PCa patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Cancer-specific anxiety; Chinese men; Prostate cancer; Psychometric evaluation
Authors: Roderick C N van den Bergh; Ida J Korfage; Gerard J J M Borsboom; Ewout W Steyerberg; Marie-Louise Essink-Bot Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2009-08-09 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: Eila Watson; Bethany Shinkins; Emma Frith; David Neal; Freddie Hamdy; Fiona Walter; David Weller; Clare Wilkinson; Sara Faithfull; Jane Wolstenholme; Prasanna Sooriakumaran; Christof Kastner; Christine Campbell; Richard Neal; Hugh Butcher; Mike Matthews; Rafael Perera; Peter Rose Journal: BJU Int Date: 2015-05-23 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Daniel O Erim; Antonia V Bennett; Bradley N Gaynes; Ram S Basak; Deborah Usinger; Ronald C Chen Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2020-04-23 Impact factor: 4.452
Authors: Callum James; Oliver Brunckhorst; Omar Eymech; Robert Stewart; Prokar Dasgupta; Kamran Ahmed Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.359