Measuring Stigma in People with Lung Cancer
Carefully read the Measuring Stigma in People with Lung Cancer.article and respond to the following questions in a Word document using APA format. Please be sure all lines are double spaced and a 12-point Times New Roman font is used. Please include the questions with your answers for clarity.
No cover page is required for this assignment but please put your last name in the header of the document and save and label the document with your last name and Instrument Development as shown here: (Your last name) Instrument Development prior to submitting it to the Dropbox.
Instrument (Psychometric) Development Article Questions
1. Can you tell from the title that this research study is going to be about developing and testing a new instrument?
2. Who are the intended participants?
3. Is the sample size adequate to produce accurate results? (Not in a pilot test).
4. What is the number of questions on the initial scale/instrument before any psychometric testing?
5. Did the authors use test-retest for reliability comparing for stability over time?
6. What is the Cronbachs a reported for the instrument as a whole and for any factors (subscales)?
7. How were the different kinds of validity measured? What validity measures did the author(s) report?
8. On the final instrument what were the final # questions?
E46 Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 Oncology Nursing Forum
Online Exclusive Article
This material is protected by U.S. copyright law. To purchase
quantity reprints e-mail reprints@ons.org. For permission to
reproduce multiple copies e-mail pubpermissions@ons.org.
L ung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths
in men and women in the United States (Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention 2010).
Compared to patients with other types of cancer
patients with lung cancer experience the
greatest amount of psychological distress (Else-Quest
LoConte Schiller & Hyde 2009; Holland et al. 2010;
Zabora BrintzenhofeSzoc Curbow Hooker & Piantadosi
2001) and have a higher risk for psychological
distress during and after treatment (Akin Can Aydiner
Ozdilli & Durna 2010; Carlsen Jensen Jacobsen Krasnik
& Johansen 2005). Psychological distress is a strong
predictor of lung cancer mortality (Hamer Chida &
Molloy 2009).
Health-related stigma (HRS) is a perceived stigma that
has been defined as a personal experience characterized
by exclusion rejection blame or devaluation that
results from anticipation of an adverse judgment. This
judgment is based on an enduring feature of identity
conferred by a health issue; the judgment is medically
unwarranted and may adversely affect health status
(Weiss & Ramakrishna 2006). HRS has been associated
with an increase in the stress associated with illness
and contributes to psychological physical and social
morbidity (Major & OBrien 2005). HRS has been extensively
studied in patients with HIV and AIDS mental
illness epilepsy and physical disability (Van Brakel
2006) but not in patients with lung cancer.
Stigma in lung cancer is based on the belief that the
patients behavior was the cause of the cancer (i.e. by
smoking). Few studies have examined the presence of
HRS in patients with lung cancer or its effect on patient
outcomes because tools to measure lung cancer stigma
did not exist (Van Brakel 2006). In one study of the
meaning of illness women with lung cancer experienced
a range of disruptions in quality of life (QOL)
Measuring Stigma in People With Lung Cancer:
Psychometric Testing of the Cataldo Lung Cancer
Stigma Scale
Janine K. Cataldo RN PhD Robert Slaughter PhD Thierry M. Jahan MD
Voranan L. Pongquan RN MPH and Won Ju Hwang RN MPH
Purpose/Objectives: To develop an instrument to measure
the stigma perceived by people with lung cancer based on
the HIV Stigma Scale.
Design: Psychometric analysis.
Setting: Online survey.
Sample: 186 patients with lung cancer.
Methods: An exploratory factor analysis with a common
factor model using alpha factor extraction.
Main Research Variables: Lung cancer stigma depression
and quality of life.
Findings: Four factors emerged: stigma and shame social
isolation discrimination and smoking. Inspection of unrotated
first-factor loadings showed support for a general
stigma factor. Construct validity was supported by relationships
with related constructs: self-esteem depression social
support and social conflict. Coefficient alphas ranging from
0.750.97 for the subscales (0.96 for stigma and shame
0.97 for social isolation 0.9 for discrimination and 0.75
for smoking) and 0.98 for the 43-item Cataldo Lung Cancer
Stigma Scale (CLCSS) provided evidence of reliability. The
final version of the CLCSS was 31 items. Coefficient alpha
was recalculated for the total stigma scale (0.96) and the
four subscales (0.97 for stigma and shame 0.96 for social
isolation 0.92 for discrimination and 0.75 for smoking).
Conclusions: The CLCSS is a reliable and valid measure
of health-related stigma in this sample of people with lung
cancer.
Implications for Nursing: The CLCSS can be used to
identify the presence and impact of lung cancer stigma and
allow for the development of effective stigma interventions
for patients with lung cancer.
and more than a third of the sample associated lung
cancer with negative meaning (Sarna et al. 2005). The
purpose of this study was to psychometrically develop
and evaluate an instrument to measure stigma as perceived
by patients with lung cancer.
Oncology Nursing Forum Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 E47
Background
Health-Related Stigma
HRS refers to a perceived stigma that is both a
trait and the outcome of being known to possess that
trait (Heijnders & Van Der Meij 2006). The effects of
perceived stigma depend on whether patients hold
themselves or if others hold the patients responsible
for the disease and whether the disease leads to serious
disability disfigurement lack of control or disruption
of social interactions (LoConte Else-Quest Eickhoff
Hyde & Schiller 2008). The association of stigma with
HIV and AIDS has been well established. Stigma in
people with HIV is associated with emotional distress
anxiety depression poor self-esteem limited sources
of social support relationship issues concealment of
disease after prognosis poor adherence to treatment increased
disability and diminished QOL (Berger Ferrans
& Lashley 2001; Stutterheim et al. 2009; Ware Wyatt
& Tugenberg 2006). Lung cancer can conjure a similar
attribution of blame as that found with HIV or AIDS
because lung cancer often is associated with smoking
cigarettes (Marlow Waller & Wardle 2010).
Conceptual Framework
Based on a conceptual model of perceived stigma
Berger et al. (2001) developed the items for the HIV
Stigma Scale. This model was adapted to patients with
lung cancer and was used to guide the development of
the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale (CLCSS). The
perceived stigma of lung cancer occurs in the context of
two factors: a persons perception of societal attitudes
toward both smoking and lung cancer and a personal
knowledge of having lung cancer (see Figure 1). Perceived
stigma associated with having lung cancer is
conceptualized as the persons awareness of their lung
cancer as it relates to actual or potential social disqualification
limitations in opportunities and negative changes
in social identity. Perceived stigma can lead to several
negative outcomes including increased psychosocial
symptom burden and increased physical symptom burden.
Although HRS has not been measured in patients
with lung cancer findings from one qualitative study
suggest that this patient population often feels victimized
or excluded by support systems which results in
strained social relationships (Greene & Banerjee 2006).
HRS ascribed to controllable factors (e.g. smoking)
elicits a greater negative reaction than stigma ascribed
to uncontrollable factors (e.g. genetics) (Hegarty &
Golden 2008; Lebel & Devins 2008). In HIV and other
diseases the negative effects of HRS appear to be related
to the level of responsibility that the patient assigns
to his or her disease (Raleigh 2010). Lung cancer can
conjure up a similar attribution of blame as that found
with HIV (Greene & Banerjee 2006). Although HIV
often is associated with homosexuality and IV drug
use lung cancer is associated with smoking cigarettes.
Whether patients are smokers or not because smoking
is a proven cause of lung cancer it is perceived to be a
controllable factor and a behavior that can be associated
with lung cancer stigma (Lebel & Devins 2008).
Tobacco Smoking and Stigma
The effects of HRS are related to the level of responsibility
that a patient assigns to his or her disease. A greater
negative reaction occurs when factors that contribute to
a disease such as smoking can be associated with HRS
(LoConte et al. 2008). Stigmatization of patients with
lung cancer is in part a consequence of the demoralization
of tobacco smoking (Bayer & Stuber 2006; Bell
Salmon Bowers Bell & McCullough 2010). Smokers
have become a marginalized part of society (Stuber
Galea & Link 2008); current and former smokers have
identified several factors that contribute to the perception
of stigmatization in smokers: perceptions of smoking as a
choice and not an addiction fear that secondhand smoke
harms children discrimination perpetrated against smokers
through no-smoking policies and low education
levels associated with smokers (Stuber et al. 2008).
Precursors
Perceptions of societal attitudes toward
smokers and people with lung cancer
Knowledge of self as having lung cancer
Perceived Stigma of Having Lung Cancer
Aware of actual or potential:
Social disqualification (social isolation subscale)
Limited opportunities (discrimination subscale)
Negative change in identity (stigma and shame
and smoking subscales)
Possible Responses
Physical reactions
Physical symptom burden
Emotional reactions
Change in self-concept
Psychosocial symptom burden
Use of techniques to avoid or minimize
stigma (e.g. information control avoidance
and withdrawal tension reduction)
Redefined world view or priorities
Figure 1. Model of Health-Related Stigma
in Patients With Lung Cancer
Note. From Measuring Stigma in People With HIV: Psychometric
Assessment of the HIV Stigma Scale by B. Berger C. Ferrans
and F. Lashley 2001 Research in Nursing and Health 24 p. 520.
Copyright 2001 by John Wiley and Sons. Adapted with permission.
E48 Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 Oncology Nursing Forum
Cancer and Stigma
Stigma has been found to be related to a deficit in
knowledge about cancer disease prevention and risk
(Rosman 2004). Several studies indicate that patients
with cancer feel stigmatized because of their disease
(Wilson & Luker 2006). The reasons for stigmatizing
patients with cancer are many but if the patient is of
the same age and gender of the healthcare provider the
perception of similarity is likely and a tendency exists
to attribute the disease to the patients characteristics
personality and lifestyle to reduce the personal threat to
the provider (Greene & Banerjee 2006). Stigma related
to disease has been identified as a significant barrier to
health promotion (Corrigan & Watson 2007).
Lung Cancer Stigma
Whether they smoked or not patients with lung cancer
have reported stigmatization (Chapple Ziebland
& McPherson 2004). Patients with lung cancer have a
high risk for psychological issues after diagnosis and
treatment (Carlsen et al. 2005). In a study of cancerrelated
stigma by Else-Quest et al. (2009) patients with
lung cancer were more likely than patients with breast
or prostate cancer to report internal causal attributions
for their cancer. Blame often has been cited as a major
stressor of having lung cancer (Carmack et al. 2008;
Marlow et al. 2010).
Because of the lack of a valid and reliable measure
empiric evidence of lung cancer stigma is limited. A
qualitative study by Chapple et al. (2004) found that
patients with lung cancer experience guilt and shame
as a result of the stigmatization of lung cancer as a
self-induced disease. Although stigma has not been
measured in patients with lung cancer findings from
one study suggest that these patients often feel victimized
or excluded by support systems which results in
strained social relationships (Greene & Banerjee 2006).
In addition patients may fear the loss of health insurance
and employment as a result of disclosure of their
cancer diagnosis (Greene & Banerjee 2006; Wilson &
Luker 2006).
Methods
Design and Procedures
This was an exploratory study using a convenience
sample and a self-administered questionnaire. The
study procedures and materials were approved by the
university institutional review board. Participants received
a $10 gift card.
Sample Recruitment
The sample was recruited online. Web-based online
data collection creates opportunities to conduct research
among difficult to access populations. However special
consideration was given to how the study would be advertised
and how the data were collected to ensure highquality
data privacy protection and validity of findings
(Cantrell & Lupinacci 2007). When constructed with the
right controls (i.e. encryption) participant anonymity is
enhanced decreasing social response set and researcherinfluenced
bias (Rhodes Bowied & Hergenrather 2003;
SurveyMonkey 2009). As recommended in Rhodes
et al. (2003) support was elicited from the Web site
administrators in advertising the study to increase the
response rate data fields were designated as optional or
not optional and all instruments and the consent form
were formatted into an individual active HTML Web
page with encryption. Because of the sensitivity of the
data a contract was made with SurveyMonkey for an
extra service that allowed for data collection in a totally
encrypted environment. Postings of an active link to
the studys home page were established on Web sites
frequented by potential study participants including
LUNGevity American Lung Association Lung Cancer
Alliance and the American Cancer Societys Cancer
Survivor Network.
The first draft of the online survey was reviewed
for edits by the site administrators before posting. The
posting included an introduction to the study Health
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act regulations
and pledge of anonymity the researchers contact
information and a direct link to the questionnaires.
The posting made participants aware of any potential
risks that existed in data security violations associated
with providing online information and that submission
of the completed questionnaires implied that they
had read the consent form and that they consented to
participate in the study. The Internet data were properly
secured when stored on a computer and a passwordaccessed
server. Data were collected as a spreadsheet
and remained anonymous with no information linking
questionnaires and participants.
Instruments
Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale: Seven experts
in stigma from the disciplines of sociology psychology
oncology and nursing were asked to serve as content
reviewers. Berger et al.s (2001) model of perceived
stigma in people with HIV was modified for use in
patients with lung cancer. According to the procedure
recommended by Lynn (1986) reviewers were asked to
evaluate how well each of the items tapped the concept
of stigma in people with lung cancer in terms of an
items clarity and relevance to the concept of stigma.
Items rated as not relevant or needing major revision
were rejected. Reviewers also were asked to judge the
comprehensiveness of the item pool and were invited to
suggest new items or content areas to fill any gaps they
Oncology Nursing Forum Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 E49
perceived. Items rejected by more than one of the seven
reviewers were discarded or rewritten. Of the 45 items
in the CLCSS submitted to content experts in the first
round eight were discarded. The 37 remaining items
were retained unchanged or were revised slightly to
improve clarity. Nine additional items were submitted
to the reviewers and then added to the 37 remaining
items for a total of 46 items. Each stigma item was measured
using a four-point Likert-type scale ranging from
1 (strongly disagree) to 4 (strongly agree). Reading level
using the Flesch-Kinkaid Index (Software Q 1990) was
assessed and found to be at the fifth-grade level.
Self-esteem: The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale
(RSES) was used to measure self-esteem. Respondents
rated each of the 10 self-esteem items on a four-point
scale. The possible scores ranged from 1040 with
higher scores indicating higher self-esteem. A wide
variety of analyses have supported the RSESs validity
(Wiley 1989). The RSES has demonstrated consistent
acceptable internal consistency reliability (coefficient
alphas of 0.720.87). For the current sample the coefficient
alpha for the RSES was 0.89.
Depression: The Center for Epidemiological Studies
Depression Scale (CES-D) is a valid and reliable
tool that has been widely used for self-ratings of depression
in clinical populations including people with
cancer and people with HIV and AIDS (Hoover et al.
1993). Participants were rated on a four-point scale
ranging from 0 (rarely or none of the time) to 3 (most
or all of the time). The overall score was calculated by
summing the ratings of 20 items so the possible range of
score was 060. Higher scores indicated greater depression.
A score of 16 or higher is generally used to indicate
depression. For the current sample the coefficient alpha
for the CES-D was 0.91.
Social support and social conflict: The Social Support
indices from the Multicenter AIDS Cohort Coping
and Change Study (OBrien Wortman Kessler &
Joseph 1993) were used to measure perceived availability
of support and social conflict. To complete the
social support scales respondents were asked to consider
their experiences during the preceding month.
Scores on each index ranged from 01 with higher
scores indicating higher levels of the measured concept.
Published psychometric data on the indices for people
at risk for HIV infection reported alphas of 0.780.89
(Berger et al. 2001). Four of the five indices were used
in the current study; coefficient alpha was 0.95 for the
availability index 0.78 for the validation index 0.82 for
the subjective social integration index and 0.84 for the
social conflict index.
Quality of life: The Quality of Life Inventory a
41-item cancer-specific QOL instrument was used
(Ferrell Wisdom & Wenzl 1989). This instrument was
previously validated in a population of patients with
lung cancer (Sarna et al. 2002). Participants responded
to questions based on their experience of how cancer
affected their QOL. Individual items were rated on a
Likert-type scale (ranging from 010) comprised of four
subscales (physical social psychological and spiritual)
with a coefficient alpha of 0.94.
Results
Sample
The convenience sample in this study consisted of
186 patients with lung cancer (all types and stages) who
were aged 20 years or older (see Table 1). The average
age was 55 years (SD = 13.7 range = 2088) 70% were
female and 79% reported that they either smoke or
have smoked in the past. No significant correlations
were noted for demographics and study variables. To
test for adequacy of sample size the authors examined
the correlation matrix using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
Table 1. Characteristics by Smoking Status
Smokers
(N = 151)
Nonsmokers
(N = 39)
Variable n % n %
Age (years)
2034 10 7 8 21
3544 19 13 4 10
4554 38 25 5 15
5564 38 25 9 23
65 or older 42 28 13 32
Missing data 4 3
Education
High school or less 26 17 6 15
Some college 52 35 6 15
Four-year college or higher 73 48 26 67
Missing data 1 3
Gender
Male 42 28 13 33
Female 109 72 26 67
Race or ethnicity
Asian or Pacific Islander 12 8 4 10
White non-Hispanic 130 86 32 82
Hispanic 3 2
Other 5 3 1 3
Missing data 1 1 2 5
Income ($)
Less than 30000 41 27 10 26
3100070000 64 42 14 36
More than 70000 42 28 15 38
Missing data 4 3
Work status
Employed 65 43 15 38
Unemployed 84 56 23 59
Missing data 2 1 1 3
Marital status
Married 108 72 31 79
Nonmarried 42 28 8 21
Missing data 1 1
Note. Because of rounding not all percentages add up to 100.
E50 Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 Oncology Nursing Forum
Measure of Sampling Adequacy (MSA) (Kaiser 1981)
and the Bartlett Sphericity Test (Dziuban & Shirkey
1974) and found that both supported factorability. The
Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin MSA is a measure of the size of
partial correlations among variables and is a good indicator
of factorability when the MSA is greater than 0.7.
The MSA in this study was 0.96 (p < 001). The Bartlett Sphericity Test assesses the degree to which a correlation matrix is an identity matrix which would make factoring inappropriate. Because the Bartlett Sphericity Test in this study was statistically significant (p < 0.001) the authors were able to conclude that the correlation matrix is not an identity matrix suggesting that factor analysis is appropriate. Construct Validity: Factor Analysis of the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale All stigma items were completed in 186 of the 200 questionnaires returned. To evaluate construct validity an exploratory factor analysis was performed to determine Table 2. Factor Loadings of the Stigma Items Factor Statement 1 2 3 4 1. I feel guilty because I have lung cancer.a 0.814 2. I work hard to keep my lung cancer a secret.a 3. Having lung cancer makes me feel like Im a bad person.a 4. Im very careful whom I tell I have lung cancer.a 5. I feel Im not as good as others because I have lung cancer.a 6. I worry people who know I have lung cancer will tell others. 7. Having lung cancer makes me feel unclean.a 8. In many areas of my life no one knows I have lung cancer. 9. I feel set apart isolated from the rest of the world.a 10. I told people close to me to keep my lung cancer a secret. 11. Telling someone I have lung cancer is risky. 12. Peoples attitudes make me feel worse about myself. 13. As a rule telling others has been a mistake. 14. My lung cancer diagnosis was delayed because I put off going to the doctor.a 15. I regret having told some people that I have lung cancer. 16. Having lung cancer in my body is disgusting to me. 17. Some told me lung cancer is what I deserved for smoking.a 18. My lung cancer diagnosis was delayed because my healthcare provider did not take my smokers cough seriously.a 0.761 0.407 0.678 0.382 0.343 0.666 0.387 0.655 0.378 0.645 0.461 0.636 0.42 0.433 0.616 0.351 0.613 0.449 0.418 0.608 0.489 0.604 0.307 0.398 0.594 0.316 0.588 0.57 0.56 0.304 0.551 0.539 0.344 0.513 0.407 0.488 0.436 0.475 0.4 19. Smokers could be refused treatment for lung cancer.a 20. I have lost friends by telling them I have lung cancer.a 21. I stopped socializing with some because of their reactions.a 22. People have physically backed away from me.a 23. People I care about stopped calling after learning that I have lung cancer.a 24. People seem afraid of me because I have lung cancer.a 25. People who know tend to ignore my good points. 26. People avoid touching me if they know I have lung cancer.a 0.41 0.341 0.807 0.328 0.767 0.359 0.747 0.394 0.737 0.362 0.709 0.312 0.441 0.698 0.486 0.677 27. Some people dont want me around their children once they know. 28. People avoid you because lung cancer is associated with death.a 29. Some people who know have grown more distant.a 30. Knowing they look for flaws in your character. 31. I was hurt how people reacted to learning I have lung cancer.a 32. I worry about people discriminating against me.a 33. People with lung cancer are treated like outcasts.a 34. Most people believe a person with lung cancer is dirty.a 35. Most people think a person with lung cancer is disgusting. 0.466 0.675 0.62 0.339 0.35 0.393 0.615 0.346 0.355 0.58 0.328 0.368 0.509 0.402 0.452 0.484 0.427 0.701 0.379 0.354 0.326 0.59 0.341 0.436 0.565 36. Most are uncomfortable around someone with lung cancer.a 37. I worry that people may judge me when they learn I have lung cancer.a 38. People with lung cancer lose jobs when employers learn.a 39. Lung cancer is viewed as a self-inflicted disease.a 40. Others assume that a patients lung cancer was caused by smoking even if he or she never smoked.a 0.47 0.498 0.448 0.45 0.343 0.306 0.415 0.435 0.704 0.697 41. Others assume that a patients lung cancer was caused by smoking even if he or she had stopped smoking years ago.a 42. Some people act as though it is my fault that I have lung cancer.a 0.663 0.369 0.455 43. Healthcare providers dont take smokers cough seriously.a 0.329 0.349 a Items retained for the revised 31-item scale. Oncology Nursing Forum Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 E51 the underlying structure of the CLCSS. A common factor model with alpha factor extraction was used (Ferketich & Muller 1990). Alpha extraction generates its factors by finding the item groupings with maximum internal consistency which makes it an appropriate choice for instrument development (Gorusch 1983). Initially 46 lung cancer stigma items were submitted for factor analysis. The unrotated first factor loadings were examined to ensure that all items loaded on a global stigma factor. All items loading at least 0.35 on the global factor were retained as were items loading at least 0.35 on two or more factors. Two items were eliminated because they did not meet the retention criteria and one factor had only one item. This resulted in a CLCSS with 43 items. The factor loadings for the four retained and varimax rotated factors are presented in Table 2. The variance explained by the four-factor solution was 57%. Factor 1. Stigma and shame subscale: The first factor consisted of 19 items with loadings ranging from 0.410.81. Two items loaded greater than 0.7 on the first factor. These items were related to the patients personal sense of stigma and shame and addressed the perceived consequences of other people knowing. Nine of the other items loading on this factor had moderate loadings (0.4 or greater) and 11 of the items also had moderate loadings on at least one other factor. Factor 2. Social isolation subscale: Thirteen items loaded on the second factor in the structure matrix with loadings ranging from 0.480.81. Five items loaded greater than 0.7 on the second factor. This factor was termed social isolation subscale in keeping with the most salient items that addressed losing social supports. Four items had loadings of greater than 0.4 on another factor. Factor 3. Discrimination subscale: Six items loaded on the third factor in the structure matrix with loadings ranging from 0.440.7. One item loaded greater than 0.7 on the third factor. The most salient item (0.7) was the statement People with lung cancer are treated like outcasts. Other items referred to feeling judged and discriminated against. Four items had loadings of 0.4 or more on another factor. Factor 4. Smoking subscale: Four items loaded on the fourth factor in the structure matrix with loadings ranging from 0.350.7. One item loaded greater than 0.7 on the fourth factor. The most salient item (0.7) was the statement Lung cancer is viewed as a self-inflicted disease. The items most correlated with this factor referred to lung cancer being considered a smokingcaused disease even if the patient had never smoked or stopped smoking years ago. Development of Subscales and Total Score Kaisers (1981) eigenvalue greater than one criterion was employed to decide on the number of components to extract and a component loading cutoff of 0.35 was used to decide whether an item loaded on a specific component (Nunnally & Bernstein 1994). Items were inspected for high coefficients or loadings and were then used in subscale scores. Subscales were formed from all items loading 0.35 or better on each factor. When an item loaded at that level on more than one factor it was included in each of the corresponding subscales; five items were included in three of the four subscales because they loaded well on three factors. Twenty items were assigned to more than one subscale. Forty-three items among all 46 items were assigned to at least one of the four subscales; three items remained unloaded. This resulted in a factor solution containing 43 items. Subscale reliability cutoff was set at greater than 0.7 (Nunnally & Bernstein 1994). Criterion-Related Validity: Correlations With Related Measures Criterion-related validity was assessed by examining the relationship of the instrument with measures of related constructs: self-esteem depression aspects of social support social conflict and QOL (see Table 3). Construct validity was supported by correlations being in predicted directions with other instruments. As expected self-esteem scores correlated negatively with the total stigma score and all subscale scores; self-esteem had the strongest negative correlation with the smoking subscale score. Similarly higher levels of depression were associated with higher levels of overall stigma as well as higher levels for each of the subscales. Table 3. Correlations of Other Measures With the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale Total and Subscales Subscale Measure Total LCS Stigma and Shame Social Isolation Discrimination Smoking CES-D 0.616* 0.608* 0.574* 0.565* 0.252* QOL inventory 0.618* 0.603* 0.569* 0.584* 0.325* RSES 0.723* 0.738* 0.701* 0.608* 0.227* Social conflict 0.619* 0.606* 0.607* 0.579* 0.237* SSAvailability 0.547* 0.542* 0.551* 0.434* 0.074 SSValidation 0.512* 0.479* 0.503* 0.441* 0.217* Subjective Integration 0.627* 0.604* 0.631* 0.556* 0.251* * p = 0.01 level (two-tailed) CES-DCenter for Epidemiological StudiesDepression Scale; LCSlung cancer stigma; QOL quality of life; RSESRosenberg Self-Esteem Scale; SSSocial Support indices E52 Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 Oncology Nursing Forum Social support availability and validation and subjective social integration and QOL showed similar patterns: moderate negative correlations with the total stigma score and with the stigma and shame social isolation and discrimination subscale scores and slightly weaker negative correlations with the smoking subscale score. Social conflict by contrast was positively related to the total stigma score and all subscale scores. Reliability: Internal Consistency Reliability Coefficient alpha for the total lung cancer stigma scale with 43 items was 0.98. Coefficient alphas calculated for the four subscales provide evidence of internal consistency reliability (see Table 4). To decrease patient burden and to further address the issue of adequate sample size the CLCSS was shortened to 31 items. Twelve items that correlated with other items at 0.8 or greater and appeared to be conceptually redundant were eliminated. Coefficient alpha was recalculated for the 31-item stigma scale (0.96) and the four subscales ranged from 0.750.96. Discussion In this study the CLCSS is a reliable and valid instrument that measures HRS in patients with lung cancer. The four factors that emerged in this analysis are reflected in the four subscales: stigma and shame social isolation discrimination and smoking. These subscales reflect a conceptual linkage with the phenomenon of perceived stigma of having lung cancer in the Berger et al. (2001) model of HRS. The linkages are social disqualification (social isolation subscale) limited opportunities (discrimination subscale) and negative change in identity (stigma and shame and smoking subscales). As a result of a lung cancer diagnosis patients often experience increased psychological distress (Bottorff Robinson Sullivan & Smith 2009; Gritz Dresler & Sarna 2005; Henoch Bergman Gustafsson Gaston-Johansson & Danielson 2007; McBride et al. 2003). Previous studies have shown that prevalence of depression among patients with lung cancer has ranged from 23%55% (Carlsen et al. 2005; Cataldo Jahan & Pongquan 2010; Montazeri Milroy Hole McEwen & Gillis 2001). Stigma most likely plays an important role in the psychological distress of patients with lung cancer. A significant consequence of HRS is a disruption in QOL (Van Brakel 2006) and QOL is a strong predictor of survival in patients with lung cancer (Balduyck Hendriks Lauwers Nia & Van Schil 2009; Qi et al. 2009). Lung cancer survivors do not experience the same length or QOL as other cancer survivors (Sugimura & Yang 2006). Stigma may be part of the explanation. In Cataldo Jahan and Pongquan (2010) the authors found that lung cancer stigma explained 11% of the variance of QOL (p < 0.001) over and above the 69% explained by depression. Although this online sample represented 38 states it did not reflect the general lung cancer population. Most participants were Caucasian women had higher levels of completed education and fell into wealthier classifications. This may represent a lung cancer population that has access to the Internet. Also because of the nature of online data clinical information on the sample (diagnosis stage of disease and treatment) was limited. Future research should include additional psychometric testing of the CLCSS in a larger more diverse sample with clinical data investigation of the effect of lung cancer stigma on patient outcomes (i.e. mood treatment choice help-seeking behavior treatment adherence disability morbidity and mortality) and development of an effective stigma intervention. As treatment for lung cancer becomes more aggressive and successful the early detection and intervention for psychological distress becomes increasingly more important for patients with lung cancer (Holland et al. 2010; Lynch Goodhart Saunders & OConnor 2010). This article highlights lung cancer stigma as an important psychosocial issue faced by patients. Because stigma is associated with poorer health status higher levels of depression and diminished QOL including an assessment of stigma in clinical practice is important (Cataldo et al. 2010). In other diseases stigma has been amenable to intervention; the development of the CLCSS provides the opportunity to identify and measure the experience of lung cancer stigma and to develop effective interventions. For people experiencing stigma from an HIV and AIDS diagnosis effective interventions have consisted of three components: education about the disease skills building for coping with the stigma and counseling and support (Brown Macintyre & Trujillo 2003). The authors of the current study are pilot testing a lung cancer stigma intervention with these three components. Feeling stigmatized causes a fear of rejection limits the use of potential social support and is associated with depression poor treatment adherence poor health and shortened survival. Therefore a sensitive measure Table 4. Reliability Coefficients for the Cataldo Lung Cancer Stigma Scale (CLCSS) and Subscales Subscale 43-Item Scale 31-Item Scale Coefficient a n Coefficient a n Discrimination 0.946 6 0.916 5 Smoking 0.748 5 0.748 5 Social isolation 0.98 13 0.958 10 Stigma and shame 0.974 19 0.968 11 Total CLCSS 0.981 43 0.964 31 Oncology Nursing Forum Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 E53 of lung cancer stigma will allow for the identification of individuals who feel stigmatized and could benefit from intervention. The prevention and treatment of stigma can have a significant impact on the overall health and QOL of patients with lung cancer. Janine K. Cataldo RN PhD is an assistant professor in the Department of Physiological NursingGerontology Robert Slaughter PhD is the director of the Office of Research and Information Technology in the School of Nursing Thierry M. Jahan MD is the Associate Professor of Medicine Bonnie J. and Anthony Addario Endowed Chair in Thoracic Oncology in the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center Voranan L. Pongquan RN MPH is a masters student in the School of Nursing and Won Ju Hwang RN MPH is a doctoral student in the School of Nursing all at the University of California San Francisco. This research was supported by a California Tobacco- Related Disease Research Program Grant (16RT-0149) and a National Institute of Nursing Research Grant (NR011934-01). Cataldo can be reached at janine.cataldo@nursing.ucsf.edu with copy to editor at ONFEditor@ons.org. (Submitted May 2010. Accepted for publication July 29 2010.) Digital Object Identifier: 10.1188/11.ONF.E46-E54 Akin S. Can G. Aydiner A. Ozdilli K. & Durna Z. (2010). Quality of life symptom experience and distress of lung cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy [Epub ahead of print]. European Journal of Oncology Nursing. Balduyck B. Hendriks J. Lauwers P. Nia P.S. & Van Schil P. (2009). Quality-of-life evolution after lung cancer surgery in septuagenarians: A prospective study. European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 35 10701075. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2009.01.050 Bayer R. & Stuber J. (2006). Tobacco control stigma and public health: Rethinking the relations. American Journal of Public Health 96 4750. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2005.071886 Bell K. Salmon A. Bowers M. Bell J. & McCullough L. (2010). Smoking stigma and tobacco denormalization: Further reflections on the use of stigma as a public health tool. A commentary on Social Science and Medicines Stigma Prejudice Discrimination and Health Special Issue. Social Science and Medicine 70 795799. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.09.060 Berger B. Ferrans C. & Lashley F. (2001). Measuring stigma in people with HIV: Psychometric assessment of the HIV stigma scale. Research in Nursing and Health 24 518529. doi: 10.1002/nur.10011 Bottorff J. Robinson C. Sullivan K. & Smith M. (2009). Continued family smoking after lung cancer diagnosis: The patients perspective [Online exclusive]. Oncology Nursing Forum 36 E126E132. doi: 10.1188/09.ONF.E126-E132 Brown L. Macintyre K. & Trujillo L. (2003). Interventions to reduce HIV/AIDS stigma: What have we learned? AIDS Education and Prevention 15 4969. doi: 10.1521/aeap.15.1.49.23844 Cantrell M. & Lupinacci P. (2007). Methodological issues in online data collection. Journal of Advanced Nursing 60 544549. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04448.x Carlsen K. Jensen A. Jacobsen E. Krasnik M. & Johansen C. (2005). Psychosocial aspects of lung cancer. Lung Cancer 47 293300. doi: 10.1016/j.lungcan.2004.08.002 Carmack C. Badr H. Lee J. Fossell F. Pisters K. & Gritz E. (2008). Lung cancer patients and their spouses: Psychological and relationship functioning within one month of treatment initiation. Annals of Behavioral Medicine 36 129140. doi: 10.1007/s12160-008-9062-7 Cataldo J. Jahan T. & Pongquan V. (2010). Lung cancer stigma depression and quality of life among ever and never smokers. Unpublished manuscript. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). United States cancer statistics: 19992006 cancer incidence and mortality data. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/uscs Chapple A. Ziebland S. & McPherson A. (2004). Stigma shame and blame experienced by patients with lung cancer: Qualitative study. BMJ 328 14701475. Corrigan P. & Watson A. (2007). The stigma of psychiatric disorders and the gender ethnicity and education of the perceiver. Community Mental Health Journal 43 439458. doi: 10.1007/s10597-007-9084-9 Dziuban C. & Shirkey E. (1974) When is a correlation matrix appropriate for factor analysis? Some decision rules. Psychological Bulletin 81 358361. doi: 10.1037/h0036316 Else-Quest N. LoConte N. Schiller J. & Hyde J. (2009). Perceived stigma self-blame and adjustment among lung breast and References prostate cancer patients. Psychology and Health 24 949964. doi: 10.1080/08870440802074664 Ferketich S. & Muller M. (1990). Factor analysis revisited. Nursing Research 39 5962. doi: 10.1097/00006199-199001000-00012 Ferrell B. Wisdom C. & Wenzl C. (1989). Quality of life as an outcome variable in the management of cancer pain. Cancer 63 23212327. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19890601)63:113.0.CO;2-T
Gorusch R. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Greene K. & Banerjee S. (2006). Disease-related stigma: Comparing
predictors of AIDS and cancer stigma. Journal of Homosexuality 50
185209. doi: 10.1300/J082v50n04_08
Gritz E. Dresler C. & Sarna L. (2005). Smoking the missing drug
interaction in clinical trials: Ignoring the obvious. Cancer Epidemiology
Biomarkers and Prevention 14 22872293. doi: 10.1158/1055
-9965.EPI-05-0224
Hamer M. Chida Y. & Molloy G. (2009). Psychological distress and
cancer mortality. Journal of Psychosomatic Research 66 255258. doi:
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.11.002
Hegarty P. & Golden A. (2008). Attributional beliefs about the controllability
of stigmatized traits: Antecedents or justifications of
prejudice? Journal of Applied Social Psychology 38 10231044. doi:
10.1111/j.1559-1816.2008.00337.x
Heijnders M. & Van Der Meij S. (2006). The fight against stigma:
An overview of stigma-reduction strategies and interventions.
Psychology Health and Medicine 11 353363. doi: 10.1080/135485006
00595327
Henoch I. Bergman B. Gustafsson M. Gaston-Johansson F. &
Danielson E. (2007). The impact of symptoms coping capacity and
social support on quality-of-life experience over time in patients
with lung cancer. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 34
370379. doi: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2006.12.005
Holland J. Andersen B. Breitbart W. Compas B. Dudley M. Fleishman
S. . . . Zevon M.A. (2010). Distress management. Journal of the
National Comprehensive Cancer Network 8 448485.
Hoover D. Saah A. Bacellar H. Murphy R. Visscher B. Anderson
R. . . . Kaslow R.A. (1993). Signs and symptoms of asymptomatic
HIV-1 infection in homosexual men. Journal of Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndromes 6 6671.
Kaiser H. (1981). A revised measure of sampling adequacy for factoranalytic
data matrices. Educational and Psychological Measurement
41 379381. doi: 10.1177/001316448104100216
Lebel S. & Devins G. (2008). Stigma in cancer patients whose behavior
may have contributed to their disease. Future Oncology 4
717733. doi: 10.2217/14796694.4.5.717
LoConte N. Else-Quest N. Eickhoff J. Hyde J. & Schiller J. (2008).
Assessment of guilt and shame in patients with non-small-cell lung
cancer compared with patients with breast and prostate cancer.
Clinical Lung Cancer 9 171178. doi: 10.3816/CLC.2008.n.026
Lynch J. Goodhart F. Saunders Y. & OConnor S. (2010). Screening
for psychological distress in patients with lung cancer: Results of a
clinical audit evaluating the use of the patient distress thermometer
[Epub ahead of print]. Supportive Care in Cancer.
E54 Vol. 38 No. 1 January 2011 Oncology Nursing Forum
Lynn M. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity.
Nursing Research 35 382385. doi: 10.1097/00006199-198611000
-00017
Major B. & OBrien L. (2005). The social psychology of stigma.
Annual Review of Psychology 56 393421. doi: 10.1146/annurev
.psych.56.091103.070137
Marlow L. Waller J. & Wardle J. (2010). Variation in blame attributions
across different cancer types. Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers
and Prevention 19 17991805. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09
-1298
McBride C. Pollak K. Garst J. Keefe F. Lyna P. Fish L. & Hood L.
(2003). Distress and motivation for smoking cessation among lung
cancer patients relatives who smoke. Journal of Cancer Education
18 150156. doi: 10.1207/S15430154JCE1803_08
Montazeri A. Milroy R. Hole D. McEwen J. & Gillis C. (2001).
Quality of life in lung cancer patients: As an important prognostic
factor. Lung Cancer 31 233240. doi: 10.1016/S0169-5002(00)00179-3
Nunnally J. & Bernstein I. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York NY:
McGraw-Hill.
OBrien K. Wortman C. Kessler R. & Joseph J. (1993). Social relationships
of men at risk for AIDS. Social Science and Medicine 36
11611167. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(93)90236-W
Qi Y. Schild S. Mandrekar S. Tan A. Krook J. Rowland K. . . .
Sloan J.A. (2009). Pretreatment quality of life is an independent
prognostic factor for overall survival in patients with advanced
stage non-small-cell lung cancer. Journal of Thoracic Oncology 4
10751082. doi: 10.1097/JTO.0b013e3181ae27f5
Raleigh Z. (2010). A biopsychosocial perspective on the experience of
lung cancer. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 28 116125.
Rhodes S. Bowied D. & Hergenrather K. (2003). Collecting behavioral
data using the World Wide Web: Considerations for
researchers. Journal of Epidemiology Community Health 57 6873.
doi: 10.1136/jech.57.1.68
Rosman S. (2004). Cancer and stigma: Experience of patients with
chemotherapy-induced alopecia. Patient Education and Counseling
52 333339. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00040-5
Sarna L. Brown J. Cooley M. Williams R. Chernecky C. Padilla
G. & Danao L.L. (2005). Quality of life and meaning of illness of
women with lung cancer [Online exclusive]. Oncology Nursing
Forum 32 E9E19. doi: 10.1188/05.ONF.E9-E19
Sarna L. Padilla G. Holmes C. Tashkin D. Brecht M. & Evangelista
L. (2002). Quality of life of long-term survivors of non-smallcell
lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology 20 29202929. doi:
10.1200/JCO.2002.09.045
Software Q. (1990). Right writer [v.4.0]. Indianapolis IN: MacMillan
Computer Publishing.
Stuber J. Galea S. & Link B. (2008). Smoking and the emergence of
a stigmatized social status. Social Science and Medicine 67 420430.
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.010
Stutterheim S. Pryor J. Bos A. Hoogendijk R. Muris P. & Schaalma
H. (2009). HIV-related stigma and psychological distress: The
harmful effects of specific stigma manifestations in various social
settings. AIDS 23 23532357.
Sugimura H. & Yang P. (2006). Long-term survivorship in lung cancer:
A review. Chest 129 10881097. doi: 10.1378/chest.129.4.1088
SurveyMonkey. (2009). Online software and questionnaire tool.
Retrieved from http://www.surveymonkey.com/Home_Reasons
.aspx
Van Brakel W. (2006). Measuring health-related stigma: A literature
review. Psychology Health and Medicine 11 307334. doi: 10.1080
/13548500600595160
Ware N. Wyatt M. & Tugenberg T. (2006). Social relationships
stigma and adherence to antiretroviral therapy for HIV/AIDS.
AIDS Care 18 904910. doi: 10.1080/09540120500330554
Weiss M. & Ramakrishna J. (2006). Stigma interventions and research
for international health. Lancet 367 536538. doi: 10.1016/S0140
-6736(06)68189-0
Wiley R. (1989). Measures of self-concept. Lincoln NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Wilson K. & Luker K. (2006). At home in hospital? Interaction and
stigma in people affected by cancer. Social Science and Medicine 62
16161627. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2005.08.053
Zabora J. BrintzenhofeSzoc K. Curbow B. Hooker C. & Piantadosi S.
(2001). The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psycho-
Oncology 10 1928. doi: 10.1002/1099-1611(200101/02)10:13.0.CO;2-6
Copyright of Oncology Nursing Forum is the property of Oncology Nursing Society and its content may not be
copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holders express written
permission. However users may print download or email articles for individual use.
We Write Essays for Students
Tell us about your assignment and we will find the best writer for your paper
Get Help Now!PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER AND GET HELP FROM A REGISTERED NURSE:)
Click the button below to order this paper AND ENJOY OUR DISCOUNT.
The post What is the number of questions on the initial scale/instrument before any psychometric testing? appeared first on Premium Nursing Papers.
Welcome to originalessaywriters.com, our friendly and experienced essay writers are available 24/7 to complete all your assignments. We offer high-quality academic essays written from scratch to guarantee top grades to all students. All our papers are 100% plagiarism-free and come with a plagiarism report, upon request
Tell Us “Write My Essay for Me” and Relax! You will get an original essay well before your submission deadline.
