Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen

Welkom bij THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie & Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

THIM Hogeschool voor Fysiotherapie heeft ervoor gezorgd dat je Mijn BSL eenvoudig en snel kunt raadplegen. Je kunt je links eenvoudig registreren. Met deze gegevens kun je thuis, of waar ook ter wereld toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL. Heb je een vraag, neem dan contact op met helpdesk@thim.nl.

» Andere revante producten voor THIM studenten en medewerkers.

Registreer

Om ook buiten de locaties van THIM, thuis bijvoorbeeld, van Mijn BSL gebruik te kunnen maken, moet je jezelf eenmalig registreren. Dit kan alleen vanaf een computer op een van de locaties van THIM.

Eenmaal geregistreerd kun je thuis of waar ook ter wereld onbeperkt toegang krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Login

Als u al geregistreerd bent, hoeft u alleen maar in te loggen om onbeperkt toegang te krijgen tot Mijn BSL.

Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-07-2015

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C)

Auteurs: Yin-Ping Zhang, Xin-Shuang Zhao, Bei Zhang, Lu-Lu Zhang, Chun-Ping Ni, Nan Hao, Chang-Bei Shi, Caroline Porr

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 7/2015

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

The comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C) is a systematic and comprehensive needs assessment tool for the family caregivers. The purpose of this project was twofold: (1) to adapt the CNAT-C to Mainland China’s cultural context and (2) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the newly adapted Chinese CNAT-C.

Methods

Cross-cultural adaptation of the original CNAT-C was performed according to published guidelines. A pilot study was conducted in Mainland China with 30 Chinese family cancer caregivers. A subsequent validation study was conducted with 205 Chinese cancer caregivers from Mainland China. Construct validity was determined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was determined using internal consistency and test–retest reliability.

Results

The split-half coefficient for the overall Chinese CNAT-C scale was 0.77. Principal component analysis resulted in an eight-factor structure explaining 68.11 % of the total variance. The comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.91 from the modified model confirmatory factor analysis. The Chi-square divided by degrees of freedom was 1.98, and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.079. In relation to the known-group validation, significant differences were found in the Chinese CNAT-C scale according to various caregiver characteristics. Internal consistency was high for the Chinese CNAT-C reaching a Cronbach α value of 0.94. Test–retest reliability was 0.85.

Conclusions

The newly adapted Chinese CNAT-C scale possesses adequate validity, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency and therefore may be used to ascertain holistic health and support needs of cancer patients’ family caregivers in Mainland China.
vorige artikel Confirmatory factor analysis of the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms (PAC-SYM) among patients with chronic constipation
volgende artikel Thyroid-specific questions on work ability showed known-groups validity among Danes with thyroid diseases
Literatuur
1.
Matsuda, T., & Saika, K. (2012). Worldwide burden of cancer incidence in 2002 extrapolated from cancer incidence in five continents, vol. ix. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42, 1111–1112.PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
American Cancer Society. (2013). Cancer facts & figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.
4.
Francis, L. E., Bowman, K. F., Kypriotakis, G., & Rose, J. H. (2011). Relationships and emotional wellbeing among African American and white advanced cancer caregivers. Patient Education and Counseling, 85, 446–453.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
5.
Francis, L. E., Worthington, J., Kypriotakis, G., & Rose, J. H. (2010). Relationship quality and burden among caregivers for late-stage cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18, 1429–1436.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Deeken, J. F., Taylor, K. L., Mangan, P., Yabroff, K. R., & Ingham, J. M. (2003). Care for the caregivers: A review of self-report instruments developed to measure the burden, needs, and quality of life of informal caregivers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 26, 922–953.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Schulz, R., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The caregiver health effects study. JAMA, 282, 2215–2219.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Vanderwerker, L. C., Laff, R. E., Kadan-Lottick, N. S., McColl, S., & Prigerson, H. G. (2005). Psychiatric disorders and mental health service use among caregivers of advanced cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 6899–6907.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
9.
Shin, D. W., Park, J. H., Shim, E. J., Park, J. H., Choi, J. Y., Kim, S. G., & Park, E. C. (2011). The development of a comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer-caregivers in patient–caregiver dyads. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 1342–1352.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Tringali, C. A. (1986). The needs of family members of cancer patients. Oncology Nursing Forum, 13, 65–70.PubMed
11.
Li, Q.-P. (2012). Research status of the cancer family caregivers. Journal of Nursing, 47, 1132–1134.
12.
Dl, F. (2002). Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.
13.
Beaton, D. E., Bombardier, C., Guillemin, F., & Ferraz, M. B. (2000). Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine (Phila Pa 1976), 25, 3186–3191.CrossRef
14.
Chaaya, M., Osman, H., Naassan, G., & Mahfoud, Z. (2010). Validation of the Arabic version of the cohen perceived stress scale (PSS-10) among pregnant and postpartum women. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 111.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
15.
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5, 343–355.PubMedCrossRef
17.
Hh, H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
Fayers, P. M., Hopwood, P., Harvey, A. E. A., Girling, D. J., Machin, D., & Stephens, R. (1997). Quality of life assessment in clinical trials—guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: The UK medical research council experience. European Journal of Cancer, 33(1), 20–28.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Batista-Foguet, J. M., Coenders, G., & Alonso, J. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis. Its role on the validation of health related questionnaires. Med Clin (Barc), 122(Suppl 1), 21–27.CrossRef
20.
Devins, G. M., Dion, R., Pelletier, L. G., Shapiro, C. M., Abbey, S., Raiz, L. R., et al. (2001). Structure of lifestyle disruptions in chronic disease: A confirmatory factor analysis of the illness intrusiveness ratings scale. Medical Care, 39(10), 1097–1104.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Bilbao, A., Mar, J., Mar, B., Arrospide, A., de Aragón, G. M., & Quintana, J. M. (2009). Validation of the Spanish translation of the questionnaire for the obesity-related problems scale. Obesity Surgery, 19(10), 1393–1400.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Given, B. A., Given, C. W., & Kozachik, S. (2001). Family support in advanced cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 51, 213–231.CrossRef
23.
Sanchez, R., Ballesteros, M., & Arnold, B. J. (2011). Validation of the FACT-G scale for evaluating quality of life in cancer patients in Colombia. Quality of Life Research, 20, 19–29.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Lyons, R. A., Wareham, K., Lucas, M., Price, D., Williams, J., & Hutchings, H. A. (1999). SF-36 Scores vary by method of administration: Implications for study design. Journal of Public Health, 21(1), 41–45.CrossRef
25.
Weitzner, M. A., Jacobsen, P. B., Wagner, H., Friedland, J., & Cox, C. (1999). The caregiver quality of life index-cancer (CQOLC) scale: Development and validation of an instrument to measure quality of life of the family caregiver of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 8, 55–63.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C)
Auteurs
Yin-Ping Zhang
Xin-Shuang Zhao
Bei Zhang
Lu-Lu Zhang
Chun-Ping Ni
Nan Hao
Chang-Bei Shi
Caroline Porr
Publicatiedatum
01-07-2015
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 7/2015
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0891-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 7/2015

The effect of mirabegron on patient-related outcomes in patients with overactive bladder: the results of post hoc correlation and responder analyses using pooled data from three randomized Phase III trials

  • Open Access

Quality of life and comorbidity among older home care clients: role of positive attitudes toward aging

  • Open Access

Health status and quality of life: results from a national survey in a community-dwelling sample of elderly people

Erratum to: Living with orofacial conditions: psychological distress and quality of life in adults affected with Treacher Collins syndrome, cherubism, or oligodontia/ectodermal dysplasia—a comparative study

  • Erratum

Diabetes quality of life perception in a multiethnic population

  • Open Access

Do health preferences contradict ordering of EQ-5D labels?