Development of the body image self-rating questionnaire for breast cancer (BISQ-BC) for Chinese mainland patients
Body image is a complex post-treatment concern among female patients with breast cancer, and various tools have been developed and applied to measure this multifaceted issue. However, these available tools were developed in other countries and only a few have been modified into Chinese versions. Fur...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | BMC cancer 2018-01, Vol.18 (1), p.19-19, Article 19 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Body image is a complex post-treatment concern among female patients with breast cancer, and various tools have been developed and applied to measure this multifaceted issue. However, these available tools were developed in other countries and only a few have been modified into Chinese versions. Furthermore, body-image evaluation instruments that are specific to Chinese mainland female patients with breast cancer have not been devised yet. Therefore, we developed the Body Image Self-rating Questionnaire for Breast Cancer for Chinese mainland female patients with breast cancer.
We performed two rounds of the Delphi technique and a cross-sectional pilot survey. Items were selected using a Likert scale (1-5) to determine ratings of importance (i.e., the significance of the item from experts' perspective; coefficients of variation ≤0.25), internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α ≥ 0.70), convergent validity (hypothesized item-subscale correlations ≥0.40), and discriminant validity (stronger correlations of the item with the hypothesized subscale than for other subscales). All decisions on items were made based on statistical analysis results, experts' recommendations, and in-depth discussion among researchers.
Twenty-five eligible experts completed the two Delphi rounds (mean age: 42.20 ± 8.90 years). Over half the experts were professors (56%, n = 14) or worked as clinical staff (68%, n = 17). Twenty (mean age = 49.55 ± 10.01 years) and 50 patients (mean age = 48.44 ± 9.98 years) completed the first- and second-round survey, respectively. Over half the patients had a tertiary education level, were married, and were employed. Regarding the revised questionnaire (comprising 33 items across seven subscales), the expert panelists' ratings of each item met the criteria (Kendall's W = 0.238, p |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1471-2407 1471-2407 |
DOI: | 10.1186/s12885-017-3865-5 |