OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic growth and benefit finding describe the potential for positive changes resulting from traumatic experiences, including cancer. In oncology, these constructs are increasingly examined concurrently using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) and the Benefit Finding Scale (BFS). However, distinctions between these constructs and their corresponding scales are not altogether clear, and the burden of administering 2 lengthy questionnaires is evident, particularly for patients at end-of-life. METHOD: Baseline data from 209 participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a psychosocial intervention were analyzed. We assessed the structure and covariance of all PTGI and BFS items using item response theory to determine the extent to which these measures overlap and the potential value of their concurrent administration in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Despite conceptual differences in posttraumatic growth and benefit finding, results indicated that these measures address the same underlying construct. We subsequently analyzed 3 abbreviated scales (7, 11, and 16 items) that combine items from both scales to identify an optimal briefer combined scale. Results supported all 3 versions, with the 7- and 16-item measures appearing to have the best balance of content and concurrent validity and the 11-item version optimizing information gained with brevity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that concurrent administration of the PTGI and BFS may be unnecessary given the high degree of overlap between these 2 measures and that a brief subset of items may adequately evaluate positive change among patients with advanced cancer while reducing participant burden. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: Posttraumatic growth and benefit finding describe the potential for positive changes resulting from traumatic experiences, including cancer. In oncology, these constructs are increasingly examined concurrently using the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) and the Benefit Finding Scale (BFS). However, distinctions between these constructs and their corresponding scales are not altogether clear, and the burden of administering 2 lengthy questionnaires is evident, particularly for patients at end-of-life. METHOD: Baseline data from 209 participants enrolled in a randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of a psychosocial intervention were analyzed. We assessed the structure and covariance of all PTGI and BFS items using item response theory to determine the extent to which these measures overlap and the potential value of their concurrent administration in patients with advanced cancer. RESULTS: Despite conceptual differences in posttraumatic growth and benefit finding, results indicated that these measures address the same underlying construct. We subsequently analyzed 3 abbreviated scales (7, 11, and 16 items) that combine items from both scales to identify an optimal briefer combined scale. Results supported all 3 versions, with the 7- and 16-item measures appearing to have the best balance of content and concurrent validity and the 11-item version optimizing information gained with brevity. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that concurrent administration of the PTGI and BFS may be unnecessary given the high degree of overlap between these 2 measures and that a brief subset of items may adequately evaluate positive change among patients with advanced cancer while reducing participant burden. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: B Rosenfeld; W Breitbart; M Galietta; M Kaim; J Funesti-Esch; H Pessin; C J Nelson; R Brescia Journal: Cancer Date: 2000-06-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: M H Antoni; J M Lehman; K M Kilbourn; A E Boyers; J L Culver; S M Alferi; S E Yount; B A McGregor; P L Arena; S D Harris; A A Price; C S Carver Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2001-01 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Cristine Maloney; Kathleen Doyle Lyons; Zhongze Li; Mark Hegel; Tim A Ahles; Marie Bakitas Journal: Palliat Med Date: 2012-05-09 Impact factor: 4.762
Authors: Hannah-Rose Mitchell; Allison J Applebaum; Kathleen A Lynch; Anne S Reiner; Thomas M Atkinson; Justin J Buthorn; Allison S Sigler; Dana Bossert; Kathleen Brewer; Jessica Corkran; Deanna Fournier; Katherine S Panageas; Eli L Diamond Journal: EClinicalMedicine Date: 2022-09-23