Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography

Value in Health

Volumn 10, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 294-304

  Brodersen, John ^a   Thorsen, Hanne ^a   Kreiner, Svend ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN   (Denmark)

Author keywords

Adverse effects; False positive reactions; Mass screening; Questionnaire design

Indexed keywords

ANXIETY; ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; BREAST EXAMINATION; CONCURRENT VALIDITY; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; DATA ANALYSIS; FACE VALIDITY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL LEAVE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RASCH ANALYSIS; RELIABILITY; SCREENING; SEXUALITY; SLEEP; SOCIOECONOMICS;

EID: 34447574804     PISSN: 10983015     EISSN: 15244733     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00184.x     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations [see comments]. N Engl J Med 1998 338 : 1089 96.
2. NHS. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. 2003. Available from: http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/02/30/60/04023060.pdf [Accessed March 3, 2007].
3. Lafata JE, Simpkins J, Lamerato L, et al. The economic impact of false-positive cancer screens. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004 13 : 2126 32.
4. Lidbrink E, Elfving J, Frisell J, Jonsson E. Neglected aspects of false positive findings of mammography in breast cancer screening: analysis of false positive cases from the Stockholm trial [see comments]. BMJ 1996 312 : 273 6.
5. Barton MB, Moore S, Polk S, et al. Increased patient concern after false-positive mammograms: clinician documentation and subsequent ambulatory visits. J Gen Intern Med 2001 16 : 150 6.
6. Brett J, Bankhead C, Henderson B, et al. The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review. Psychooncology 2005 14 : 917 38.
7. Brodersen J, Thorsen H, Cockburn J. The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. J Med Screen 2004 11 : 39 44.
8. Streiner DL, Norman GR. Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1995.
9. Doward LC, Meads DM, Thorsen H. Requirements for quality of life instruments in clinical research. Value Health 2004 7 (Suppl. S13 16.
10. McCaffery KJ, Barratt AL. Assessing psychosocial/quality of life outcomes in screening: how do we do it better? J Epidemiol Community Health 2004 58 : 968 70.
11. Cockburn J, De LT, Hurley S, Clover K. Development and validation of the PCQ: a questionnaire to measure the psychological consequences of screening mammography. Soc Sci Med 1992 34 : 1129 34.
12. Lightfoot N, Steggles S, Wilkinson D, et al. The short-term psychological impact of organised breast cancer screening. Curr Oncol (Toronto, 1198-0052) 1994 1 : 206 11.
13. Wright BD. Fundamental measurement for psychology. In : Embretson SE, Hershberger SL, eds. The New Rules of Measurement: What Every Psychologist and Educator Should Know. Mahwah, NJ and London : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
14. Andrich D. Controversy and the Rasch model: a characteristic of incompatible paradigms? Med Care 2004 42 : I7 16.
15. Rosenbaum PR. Criterion-related construct validity. Psychometrika 1989 54 : 625 33.
16. Rasch G. An informal report on a theory of objectivity in comparisons. In : Van der Kamp LJTh, Vlek CAJ, eds. Psychological Measurement Theory. Leyden : University of Leyden, 1967.
17. Andersen EB. Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika 1977 42 : 69 81.
18. Bartholomew DJ. The Statistical Approach to Social Measurement. San Diego : Academic Press, 1996.
19. Holland PW, Hoskens M. Classical Test Theory as a first-order Item Response Theory: application to true-score prediction from a possibly nonparallel test. Psychometrika 2003 68 : 123 49.
20. Holland PW, Wainer H eds). Differential item functioning. Hilsdale NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
21. Andrich D. Understanding resistance to the data-model relationship in Rasch's paradigm: a reflection for the next generation. J Appl Meas 2002 3 : 325 59.
22. Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status: a new tool for clinicians and epidemiologists. J R Coll Gen Pract 1985 35 : 185 8.
23. Thorsen H, McKenna SP, Gottschalck L. The Danish version of the Nottingham Health Profile: its adaptation and reliability. Scand J Prim Health Care 1993 11 : 124 9.
24. Thorsen H, McKenna SP, Gottschalck L. Perceived health in three groups of elderly people. A validity study of the Danish version of the Nottingham Health Profile. Dan Med Bull 1995 42 : 105 8.
25. McDowell I, Newell C. Measuring Health. A Guide to Rating Scales and Questionnaires. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 1996.
26. Andrich D, Sheridan B, Luo G. RUMM2020. [Version 4.0 for Windows] 2005. RUMM Laboratory Pty Ltd. Available from: http://www.rummlab.com/ [Accessed March 5, 2007].
27. Andrich D, Luo G. Conditional pairwise estimation in the Rasch model for ordered response categories using principal components. J Appl Meas 2003 4 : 205 21.
28. Wright BD, Panchapakesan N. A Procedure for sample-free item analysis. Educ Psychol Meas 1969 29 : 23 48.
29. Cronbach LJ. Coeffcient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika 1951 16 : 297 334.
30. Cronbach LJ. Internal consistency of tests: analyses old and new. Psychometrika 1988 53 : 63 70.
31. Smith EV Jr. Evidence for the reliability of measures and validity of measure interpretation: a Rasch measurement perspective. In : Smith EV Jr., Smith RM, eds. Introduction to Rasch Measurement. Theory, Models and Applications. Maple Grove : JAM Press, 2004.
32. Muthén L, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, Nguyen T. Mplus 2.14. 2005. Available from: http://www.statmodel.com/ [Accessed March 5, 2007].
33. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Statist Soc Ser B 1995 57 : 289 300.
34. Masters GN. A Rasch model for partial credit scoring. Psychometrika 1982 47 : 149 74.
35. Andrich D. A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Appl Psychol Meas 1978 2 : 581 94.