Factorial validity and invariance of four psychosocial constructs of colorectal cancer screening: Does screening experience matter?

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 22, Issue 12, 2013, Pages 2295-2302

  Murphy, Caitlin C ^a   McQueen, Amy ^c   Bartholomew, L Kay ^a   Del Junco, Deborah J ^b   Coan, Sharon P ^a   Vernon, Sally W ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; BARRIER; BENEFIT; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; CONSTRUCT VALIDITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; OPTIMISM; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SELF CONCEPT; UNITED STATES; VETERAN;

AGED; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, PSYCHOLOGICAL; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS;

EID: 84890063853     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-13-0565     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Vernon SW, McQueen A. Colorectal Cancer Screening. In: Holland JC, Breitbart WS, Jacobsen PB, Lederberg MS, Loscalzo MJ, McCorkle R, editors. Psycho-Oncology, 2nd edition. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2010. p. 71-83.
2. McQueen A, Vernon SW, Myers RE, Watts BG, Lee ES, Tilley BC. Correlates and predictors of colorectal cancer screening among male automotive workers. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2007;16: 500-9.
3. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012;43: 97-118.
4. Institute of Medicine. Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2002: 28-75.
5. Noar SM, Zimmerman RS. Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction? Health Educ Res 2005;20:275-90.
6. Weinstein ND, Rothman AJ. Commentary: revitalizing research on health behavior theories. Health Educ Res 2005;20:294-7.
7. Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM). National Cancer Institute. https://www.gem-beta.org.
8. Vernon SW, Myers RE, Tilley BC. Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1997;6:825-32.
9. Rawl S, Champion V, Menon U, Loehrer PJ, Vance GH, Skinner CS. Validation of scales to measure benefits of and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. J Psychosoc Oncol 2001;19:47-63.
10. Tiro JA, Vernon SW, Hyslop T, Myers RE. Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening among African Americans and Caucasians. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2005;14:2855-61.
11. Ritvo P, Myers R, Del Giudice ML, Pazsat L, Campbell PT, Howlett RI, et al. Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening in Ontario, Canada - a replication study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17: 3279-83.
12. McQueen A, Tiro JA, Vernon SW. Construct validity and invariance of four factors associated with colorectal cancer screening across gender, race, and prior screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17:2231-7.
13. Wu AD, Li Z, Zumbo BD. Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: a demonstration with TIMSS data. Pract Assess Res Eval 2007;12: 1-26.
14. Vandenberg RJ, Lance CE. Are view and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Method 2000;3:4-70.
15. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:627-37.
16. Levin B, Lieberman DA, McFarland B, Smith RA, Brooks D, Andrews KS, et al. Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:130-60.
17. Vernon SW, Bartholomew LK, McQueen A, Bettencourt JL, Greisinger A, Coan SP, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same. Ann Behav Med 2011;41: 284-99.
18. Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Optimism, pessimism, and psychological well-being. In:Chang EC, editor. Optimism and pessimism: implications for theory, research and practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000. p. 189-216.
19. McQueen A, Vernon SW, Swank PR. Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: an application to colorectal cancer screening. Health Psychol 2013;32:190-202.
20. Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol 1994;67:1063-78.
21. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus 7.0. 7th ed, 2012. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
22. Ender CK, Bandalos DL. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Struct Equation Model 2001;8:430-57.
23. Schafer JL, Graham JW. Missing data: our view of the state of the art. Psychol Methods 2002;7:147-77.
24. Hu LH, Bentler PM, Hoyle RH. Evaluating model fit. Structural equation modeling. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1995. p. 76-99.
25. Hu LH, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equation Model 1999;6:1-55.
26. Dimitrov DM. Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Meas Eval Counsel Dev 2010;43:121-49.
27. Satorra A, Bentler PM. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In: Von Eye A, Clogg CC, editors. Latent variable analysis: applications for development research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. p. 399-519.
28. 2 test statistic for moment structure analysis. Pyschometrika 2001;66:507-14.
29. Cortina JM. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. J Appl Psych 1993;78:98-104.
30. Han PK, Klein WM, Killam B, Lehman T, Massett H, Freedman AN. Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk. Patient Educ Couns 2012;86: 106-13.
31. Han PK, Klein WM, Lehman T, Killam B, Massett H, Freedman AN. Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors. Med Decis Making 2011;31: 354-66.
32. Gregorich SE. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care 2006;44:S78-94.
33. Jones RM, Woolf SH, Cunningham TD, Johnson RE, Krist AH, Rothemich SF, et al. The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:499-507.
34. Jones RM, Devers KJ, Kuzel AJ, Woolf SH. Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis. Am J Prev Med 2010;38:508-16.
35. Medina GG, McQueen A, Greisinger AJ, Bartholomew LK, Vernon SW. What would make getting colorectal cancer screening easier? Perspectives from screeners and nonscreeners. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2012;2012:895807.