Cultural adaptation and psychometric evaluation of the Swedish version of the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale.
Breast neoplasms
Fertility distress
Psychometric evaluation
Reproductive health
Survivorship
Translation
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Aug 2020
06 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
20
02
2020
accepted:
29
07
2020
entrez:
9
8
2020
pubmed:
9
8
2020
medline:
12
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Reproductive concerns are common among young cancer survivors and include worries related to different aspects of fertility and parenthood. The Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale is an 18-item scale with six dimensions, developed to capture a variety of such concerns. The aim of the present study was to describe the cultural adaptation of the RCAC scale into Swedish and evaluate its psychometric properties among young women who have undergone treatment for cancer. The RCAC was forward translated from English into Swedish and assessed for cultural adaptation based on a two-panel approach followed by cognitive interviews with the target group. For the psychometric evaluation, a Swedish cohort of 181 female young adult breast cancer survivors completed a survey including the RCAC scale approximately 1.5 years post-diagnosis. Psychometric properties were examined by analyses of construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity), data quality (score distribution, floor and ceiling effects), reliability and known-groups validity. The confirmatory factor analysis yielded an acceptable fit (RMSEA 0.08, SRMR 0.09, CFI 0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated by a negative correlation of moderate size (- 0.36) between the RCAC total score and the emotional function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Reliability measured with Revelle Ω total was satisfactory (0.73-0.92) for five of the dimensions, and poor for the dimension Becoming pregnant (Revelle Ω total = 0.60); Cronbach's alpha showed a similar pattern. Known-groups validity was indicated by significant RCAC mean score differences (MD), reflecting more concerns among women with a certain (MD 4.56 [95% CI 3.13 to 5.99]) or uncertain (MD 3.41 [95% CI 1.68 to 5.14]) child wish compared to those with no wish for (additional) children. The translation and cultural adaptation of the Swedish RCAC has resulted in a scale demonstrating construct and known-groups validity, and satisfactory reliability for five of six dimensions. The dimension Becoming pregnant showed non-optimal internal consistency and should undergo further evaluation. The Swedish RCAC is recommended to be used in research settings for measurement of concerns related to fertility and parenthood in young women with cancer.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Reproductive concerns are common among young cancer survivors and include worries related to different aspects of fertility and parenthood. The Reproductive Concerns After Cancer (RCAC) scale is an 18-item scale with six dimensions, developed to capture a variety of such concerns. The aim of the present study was to describe the cultural adaptation of the RCAC scale into Swedish and evaluate its psychometric properties among young women who have undergone treatment for cancer.
METHODS
METHODS
The RCAC was forward translated from English into Swedish and assessed for cultural adaptation based on a two-panel approach followed by cognitive interviews with the target group. For the psychometric evaluation, a Swedish cohort of 181 female young adult breast cancer survivors completed a survey including the RCAC scale approximately 1.5 years post-diagnosis. Psychometric properties were examined by analyses of construct validity (confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity), data quality (score distribution, floor and ceiling effects), reliability and known-groups validity.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The confirmatory factor analysis yielded an acceptable fit (RMSEA 0.08, SRMR 0.09, CFI 0.92). Convergent validity was demonstrated by a negative correlation of moderate size (- 0.36) between the RCAC total score and the emotional function scale of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Reliability measured with Revelle Ω total was satisfactory (0.73-0.92) for five of the dimensions, and poor for the dimension Becoming pregnant (Revelle Ω total = 0.60); Cronbach's alpha showed a similar pattern. Known-groups validity was indicated by significant RCAC mean score differences (MD), reflecting more concerns among women with a certain (MD 4.56 [95% CI 3.13 to 5.99]) or uncertain (MD 3.41 [95% CI 1.68 to 5.14]) child wish compared to those with no wish for (additional) children.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The translation and cultural adaptation of the Swedish RCAC has resulted in a scale demonstrating construct and known-groups validity, and satisfactory reliability for five of six dimensions. The dimension Becoming pregnant showed non-optimal internal consistency and should undergo further evaluation. The Swedish RCAC is recommended to be used in research settings for measurement of concerns related to fertility and parenthood in young women with cancer.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32762775
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01520-y
pii: 10.1186/s12955-020-01520-y
pmc: PMC7412787
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
273Subventions
Organisme : Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder
ID : 161272
Organisme : Cancerfonden
ID : CAN 2013/886
Organisme : Barncancerfonden
ID : TJ2014-0050
Organisme : Vårdalstiftelsen
ID : 2014-0098
Organisme : Forskningsrådet om Hälsa, Arbetsliv och Välfärd (SE)
ID : 2014-4689
Organisme : Vetenskapsrådet
ID : 2017-01530
Références
Support Care Cancer. 2017 Apr;25(4):1263-1270
pubmed: 27921223
Value Health. 2010 Jun-Jul;13(4):424-30
pubmed: 20070642
Cancer. 2015 Mar 15;121(6):935-42
pubmed: 25377593
Cancer. 2017 May 15;123(10):1721-1730
pubmed: 28085182
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2011 Mar;1(1):3-10
pubmed: 26812562
Am Psychol. 2003 Jan;58(1):78-9
pubmed: 12674822
J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993 Mar 3;85(5):365-76
pubmed: 8433390
Value Health. 2004 Sep-Oct;7 Suppl 1:S27-30
pubmed: 15367241
Psychooncology. 2018 Dec;27(12):2770-2777
pubmed: 30203884
BMC Cancer. 2008 Jun 21;8:177
pubmed: 18570676
J Cancer Surviv. 2012 Jun;6(2):200-9
pubmed: 22179785
Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2016 Jan;97:328-34
pubmed: 26481950
Qual Life Res. 1995 Aug;4(4):293-307
pubmed: 7550178
Psychol Methods. 2018 Sep;23(3):412-433
pubmed: 28557467
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Oct;22(10):2805-12
pubmed: 24817617
Psychooncology. 2019 Jul;28(7):1544-1550
pubmed: 31128074
Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2020 Jun 12;47:101781
pubmed: 32563843
J Cancer Surviv. 2014 Jun;8(2):218-28
pubmed: 24352870
Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159-74
pubmed: 843571
Semin Oncol. 2009 Jun;36(3):194-206
pubmed: 19460577
J Adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2013 Dec 1;2(4):153-160
pubmed: 24380034