Heidi A Hamann1,2,3,4, Megan J Shen5, Anna J Thomas2, Simon J Craddock Lee3,4, Jamie S Ostroff6. 1. Department of Psychology, Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ. 2. Department of Psychiatry, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 3. Department of Clinical Sciences, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 4. Harold C. Simmons Cancer Center, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX. 5. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY. 6. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Among patients with lung cancer, stigma is associated with negative psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. There is a need to develop psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for stigma that incorporate perspectives of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. As part of our multi-phase process of measure development and validation, we report on scale formation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the Lung Cancer Stigma Inventory (LCSI). METHOD: Building on previously reported concept elicitation (Phase I) work, Phase II of LCSI development involved item generation and refinement, informed by literature review, provider input, and patient (N=20) feedback. Phase III focused on initial psychometric scale evaluation in a unique sample of 231 lung cancer patients. RESULTS: Based on provider input and patient cognitive interviews, 49 items were included in a preliminary measure. In an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 37 retained items, three factors emerged: Perceived Stigma, Internalized Stigma, and Constrained Disclosure. Internal consistency of the final, 25-item LCSI scale was high (Cronbach's alpha= 0.89) and the three subscales demonstrated good internal consistency. The test-retest correlation was high (r = 0.91), suggesting strong stability of measurement over time. There was good convergent validity between the LCSI and an existing measure of lung cancer stigma, the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale (CLCSS; r= 0.58, p< 0.001). DISCUSSION: In a multi-phase process, we have developed a reliable, multi-dimensional measure of lung cancer stigma, the Lung Cancer Stigma Inventory (LCSI). Subsequent work will be conducted to establish further evidence of validity and clinically meaningful change.
INTRODUCTION: Among patients with lung cancer, stigma is associated with negative psychosocial and behavioral outcomes. There is a need to develop psychometrically robust patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for stigma that incorporate perspectives of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. As part of our multi-phase process of measure development and validation, we report on scale formation and preliminary psychometric evaluation of the Lung Cancer Stigma Inventory (LCSI). METHOD: Building on previously reported concept elicitation (Phase I) work, Phase II of LCSI development involved item generation and refinement, informed by literature review, provider input, and patient (N=20) feedback. Phase III focused on initial psychometric scale evaluation in a unique sample of 231 lung cancer patients. RESULTS: Based on provider input and patient cognitive interviews, 49 items were included in a preliminary measure. In an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 37 retained items, three factors emerged: Perceived Stigma, Internalized Stigma, and Constrained Disclosure. Internal consistency of the final, 25-item LCSI scale was high (Cronbach's alpha= 0.89) and the three subscales demonstrated good internal consistency. The test-retest correlation was high (r = 0.91), suggesting strong stability of measurement over time. There was good convergent validity between the LCSI and an existing measure of lung cancer stigma, the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale (CLCSS; r= 0.58, p< 0.001). DISCUSSION: In a multi-phase process, we have developed a reliable, multi-dimensional measure of lung cancer stigma, the Lung Cancer Stigma Inventory (LCSI). Subsequent work will be conducted to establish further evidence of validity and clinically meaningful change.
Authors: Paul A Harris; Robert Taylor; Robert Thielke; Jonathon Payne; Nathaniel Gonzalez; Jose G Conde Journal: J Biomed Inform Date: 2008-09-30 Impact factor: 6.317
Authors: Jamie S Ostroff; Kristen E Riley; Megan J Shen; Thomas M Atkinson; Timothy J Williamson; Heidi A Hamann Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-04-16 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Heidi A Hamann; Elizabeth S Ver Hoeve; Lisa Carter-Harris; Jamie L Studts; Jamie S Ostroff Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-05-23 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Alyssa K Choi; Julie C Kim; Edward B Garon; Jenessa R Shapiro; Michael R Irwin; Jonathan W Goldman; Krikor Bornyazan; James M Carroll; Annette L Stanton Journal: J Thorac Oncol Date: 2018-07-05 Impact factor: 15.609
Authors: Jamie S Ostroff; Elyse R Park; Brett M Goshe; Autumn W Rasmussen; Lynne I Wagner; JoRean D Sicks; Ilana F Gareen; Ruth C Carlos; Benjamin A Herman; Angela Wangari Walter; Susan Regan; Douglas E Levy; Irene Mahon; Alona Muzikansky; Jordan M Neil; Michelle Lui; Deepika Dilip; Laura Malloy; Irina Gonzalez; Lucy Finkelstein-Fox; Caitlin McCann; Elissa Perez Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2022-07-15 Impact factor: 4.135
Authors: Laurie E McLouth; Kaitlyn Weyman; Shannon L Golden; Jennifer S Cheavens; Amy Peterman; Vilma Bursac; Jennifer Gabbard; Kathryn E Weaver Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 3.955
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Edward B Garon; Jenessa R Shapiro; Denise A Chavira; Jonathan W Goldman; Annette L Stanton Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2022-04 Impact factor: 5.556
Authors: Timothy J Williamson; Jamie S Ostroff; Chloé M Martin; Smita C Banerjee; Carma L Bylund; Heidi A Hamann; Megan Johnson Shen Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2020-08-11