Psycho-oncology · 2011
The nature and structure of psychological distress in people at high risk for melanoma: a factor analytic study.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kasparian Nadine A, Sansom-Daly Ursula, McDonald Roderick P, Meiser Bettina, Butow Phyllis N, Mann Graham J
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the psychometric properties of two commonly used measures of psychological distress, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the Impact of Events Scale (IES) in a sample of individuals at high risk of developing melanoma due to strong family history.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-two individuals with a known family-specific CDKN2A mutation (74% response rate) completed a mailed, self-administered questionnaire including the HADS and the IES. Initial correlational analyses were followed by both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, according to a predetermined procedure for order of analyses.
RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses found that neither a two-, three- or four-factor solution satisfactorily accounted for all IES items in the present sample. By contrast, a unidimensional account of the data emerged to best account for all IES items, leaving no items unaccounted for. In contrast, the traditional two-factor (anxiety and depression) structure of the HADS appeared to fit the data well.
CONCLUSIONS: The traditional, two-factor (intrusion and avoidance) structure of the IES was not borne out within this familial melanoma cohort. Assessment of a single dimension of emotional distress in response to melanoma risk may facilitate more meaningful explorations of psychological adjustment in this context. These findings also raise questions about whether a post-traumatic stress framework is indeed the most appropriate framework to capture the unique nature of melanoma- or cancer-related distress.
METHODS: One hundred thirty-two individuals with a known family-specific CDKN2A mutation (74% response rate) completed a mailed, self-administered questionnaire including the HADS and the IES. Initial correlational analyses were followed by both exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, according to a predetermined procedure for order of analyses.
RESULTS: Exploratory factor analyses found that neither a two-, three- or four-factor solution satisfactorily accounted for all IES items in the present sample. By contrast, a unidimensional account of the data emerged to best account for all IES items, leaving no items unaccounted for. In contrast, the traditional two-factor (anxiety and depression) structure of the HADS appeared to fit the data well.
CONCLUSIONS: The traditional, two-factor (intrusion and avoidance) structure of the IES was not borne out within this familial melanoma cohort. Assessment of a single dimension of emotional distress in response to melanoma risk may facilitate more meaningful explorations of psychological adjustment in this context. These findings also raise questions about whether a post-traumatic stress framework is indeed the most appropriate framework to capture the unique nature of melanoma- or cancer-related distress.