Original Article

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Modified Breast Cancer Worry Scale

Abstract

Background: There are many assessment instruments used for cancer worry. Many women worry about breast cancer, but In Turkey, there is no scale that assesses the worry about developing breast cancer. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish Breast Cancer Worry Scale (BCWS). This scale was created as a modified version of the Cancer Worry Scale.

Methods: The study was conducted in a Family Health Center (FHC) located in eastern Turkey using a methodological design. The study sample consisted of 610 healthy women who referred to a FHC for any reason. The data were collected using the Participant Information Form and BCWS with a face-to-face interview conducted between Jun 2015 and Jan 2016. Construct validity of the scales was tested via factor analysis, Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, item-total score correlation coefficient, and test-retest correlations were calculated to check for reliability.

Results: The factor load values of BCWS were found to be between 0.45 and 0.79. The total Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of the scale was 0.78, and the total score correlations of items ranged between 0.32 and 0.64. The test-retest reliability coefficient of the scale was 0.81 (P=0.001).

Conclusion: The Turkish version of the BCWS is a valid and reliable tool for assessing the effect of breast cancer worry on daily activities and mental condition.

 

1. Asif HM, Sultana S, Akhtar N, Rehman JU, Rehman RU (2014). Prevalence, risk factors and disease knowledge of breast cancer in Pakistan. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 15 (11): 4411-6.
2. Hay JL, McCaul KD, Magnan RE (2006). Does worry about breast cancer pre-dict screening behaviors? A meta-analysis of the prospective evidence. Prev Med, 42 (6): 401–8.
3. Jensen J, Bernat J, Davis L, Yale R (2010). Dispositional cancer worry: conver-gent, divergent, and predictive validity of existing scales. J Psychosoc Oncol, 28 (5): 470-89.
4. Bernat, JK, Anderson LB, Parrish-Sprowl J, Sparks GG (2015). Exploring the association between dispositional can-cerworry, perceived risk, and physical activity amongcollege women. J Am Coll Health, 63 (3): 216-20.
5. Bernat JK, Jensen JD (2014). Measuring dispositional cancer worryin China and Belgium: A cross-culturalvalidation. J Psychosoc Oncol, 32 (2): 189-206.
6. Quillin JM, Bodurtha JN, McClish D (2011). Genetic risk, perceived risk, and cancer worry in daughters of breast cancer patients. J Genet Couns, 20 (2): 157-64.
7. Yüksel S, Uğraş GA, Çavdar İ et al (2017). A risk assessment comparison of breast cancer and factors affected to risk perception of women in Tur-key: A cross-sectional study. Iran J Pub-lic Health, 46 (3): 308-17.
8. Custers JAE, Berg SW, Laarhoven HWM et al (2014). The cancer worry scale de-tecting fear of recurrence in breast cancer survivors. Cancer Nurs, 37 (1): E44-50.
9. Lerman C, Trock B, Rimer BK (1991). Psychological side effects of breast cancer screening. Health Psychol,10 (4): 259-67.
10. Beaton D, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB (2007). Recommendations for the cross-cultural adaptation of the DASH &Quick DASH Outcome Measure. Amer-ican Academy of Orthopaedic Sur-geons Institute for Work & Health: 1-9.
11. Kline P (1994). An easy guide to factor analy-sis. Routledge. New York.
12. Gözüm S, Aksayan S (2003). A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale II: psychometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparison. HEMAR-G, 5(1): 3-14.
13. Bowling A, Ebrahim S (2005). Handbook of health research methods: investigation, meas-urement and analysis. Open University Press. England.
14. Karagöz Y (2016). SPSS and AMOS 23 Applied statistical analysis.Nobel Press. Ankara.
15. Pallant J (2005). SPSS survival manual: a step by step guide to data analysis using SPSS for Windows. Sabon By Bookhouse. Syd-ney.
16. Kline RB (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press. New York London.
17. Cabrera E, Zabalegui A, Blanco I (2011). Spanish version of the Cancer Worry Scale (CWS). Cross cultural adaptation and validity and reliability analysis. Med Clin (Barc), 136 (1): 8–12.
18. Foster C, Evans DGR, Eeles R et al (2002). Predictive testing for BRCA1/2: attributes, risk perception and management in a multi-centre clin-ical cohort. Br J Cancer, 86 (8): 1209-16.
19. Akgül A, Çelik O (2005).Statistical analysis techniques. Emek Press. Ankara.
20. Bland JM, Altman DG (1997). Statistics notes: Cronbach's alpha. BMJ, 314:572.
21. Phillips KM, McGinty HL, Gonzalez BD et al (2013). Factors associated with breast cancer worry 3 years after com-pletion of adjuvant treatment. Psychoon-cology, 22 (4): 936–9.
22. Rees G, Fry A, Cull A, Sutton S (2004). Illness perceptions and distress in women at increased risk of breast can-cer. Psychol Health, 19 (6): 749–65.
23. Retèl VP, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Aaronson NK et al (2013). Association between genomic recurrence risk and well-being among breast cancer pa-tients. BMC Cancer, 13:295.
Files
IssueVol 47 No 11 (2018) QRcode
SectionOriginal Article(s)
Keywords
Breast cancer worry scale Cancer worry Turkish version Validity Reliability
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
TAŞHAN ST, UÇAR T, AKSOY DERYA Y, NACAR G, ERCI B. Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Modified Breast Cancer Worry Scale. Iran J Public Health. 2018;47(11):1681-1687.