Evaluation of a skin self examination attitude scale using an item response theory model approach

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Monika Janda²  Joanne Aitken¹  Pip Youl³  Ngadiman Djaja² 

[1] Griffith Health Institute, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia;National Health and Medical Research Council Centre for Research Excellence in Sun and Health, Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Australia;Cancer Council Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia

关键词: Rasch model;    Rating scale;    Item response theory;    Attitude scale;    Skin self-examination;    Skin cancer;   

Others  :  1133905
DOI  :  10.1186/s12955-014-0189-x

 received in 2014-06-20, accepted in 2014-12-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Introduction

The Skin Self-Examination Attitude Scale (SSEAS) is a brief measure that allows for the assessment of attitudes in relation to skin self-examination. This study evaluated the psychometric properties of the SSEAS using Item Response Theory (IRT) methods in a large sample of men ≥ 50 years in Queensland, Australia.

Methods

A sample of 831 men (420 intervention and 411 control) completed a telephone assessment at the 13-month follow-up of a randomized-controlled trial of a video-based intervention to improve skin self-examination (SSE) behaviour. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation, item–total correlations, and Cronbach’s alpha) were compiled and difficulty parameters were computed with Winsteps using the polytomous Rasch Rating Scale Model (RRSM). An item person (Wright) map of the SSEAS was examined for content coverage and item targeting.

Results

The SSEAS have good psychometric properties including good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.80), fit with the model and no evidence for differential item functioning (DIF) due to experimental trial grouping was detected.

Conclusions

The present study confirms the SSEA scale as a brief, useful and reliable tool for assessing attitudes towards skin self-examination in a population of men 50 years or older in Queensland, Australia. The 8-item scale shows unidimensionality, allowing levels of SSE attitude, and the item difficulties, to be ranked on a single continuous scale. In terms of clinical practice, it is very important to assess skin cancer self-examination attitude to identify people who may need a more extensive intervention to allow early detection of skin cancer.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Djaja et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Geller AC, Swetter SM, Brooks K, Demierre M-F, Yaroch AL: Screening, early detection, and trends for melanoma: current status (2000-2006) and future directions. J Am Acad Dermatol 2007, 57:555-572.
• [2]Berwick M, Begg CB, Fine JA, Roush GC, Barnhill RL: Screening for cutaneous melanoma by skin self-examination. J Natl Cancer Inst 1996, 88:17-23.
• [3]Carli P, De Giorgi V, Palli D, Maurichi A, Mulas P, Orlandi C, Imberti GL, Stanganelli I, Soma P, Dioguardi D, Catricala' C, Betti R, Cecchi R, Bottoni U, Bonci A, Scalvenzi M, Giannotti B: Dermatologist detection and skin self-examination are associated with thinner melanomas: results from a survey of the Italian Multidisciplinary Group on Melanoma. Arch Dermatol 2003, 139(5):607-612.
• [4]Berwick M, Armstrong BK, Ben-Porat L, Fine J, Kricker A, Eberle C, Barnhill R: Sun exposure and mortality from melanoma. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005, 97:195-199.
• [5]United States Preventive Services Task Force: Screening for skin cancer: recommendations and rationale Am J Prev Med 2001, 20(3 Suppl):44-46.
• [6]Skin Cancer Prevention and Early Detection. [http://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancercauses/sunanduvexposure/skincancerpreventionandearlydetection/skin-cancer-prevention-and-early-detection-toc]
• [7]National Cancer Prevention Policy: Ultraviolet radiation. [http://wiki.cancer.org.au/policy/UV/Effective_interventions/Melanoma_screening]
• [8]Baade PD, Balanda KP, Lowe JB: Changes in skin protection behaviors, attitudes, and sunburn: in a population with the highest incidence of skin cancer in the world. Cancer Detect Prev 1995, 20:566-575.
• [9]Baade PD, Youl PH, English DR, Mark Elwood J, Aitken JF: Clinical pathways to diagnose melanoma: a population-based study. Melanoma Res 2007, 17:243-249.
• [10]Youl PH, Janda M, Aitken JF, Del Mar CB, Whiteman DC, Baade PD: Body-site distribution of skin cancer, pre-malignant and common benign pigmented lesions excised in general practice. Br J Dermatol 2011, 165:35-43.
• [11]Weinstock MA, Martin RA, Risica PM, Berwick M, Lasater T, Rakowski W, Goldstein MG, Dube CE: Thorough skin examination for the early detection of melanoma. Am J Prev Med 1999, 17:169-175.
• [12]Janda M, Youl PH, Lowe JB, Baade PD, Elwood M, Ring IT, Aitken JF: What motivates men age > or =50 years to participate in a screening program for melanoma? Cancer 2006, 107:815-823.
• [13]Kasparian NA, McLoone JK, Meiser B: Skin cancer-related prevention and screening behaviors: a review of the literature. J Behav Med 2009, 32:406-428.
• [14]Manne S, Lessin S: Prevalence and correlates of sun protection and skin self-examination practices among cutaneous malignant melanoma survivors. J Behav Med 2006, 29:419-434.
• [15]Swetter SM, Layton CJ, Johnson TM, Brooks KR, Miller DR, Geller AC: Gender differences in melanoma awareness and detection practices between middle-aged and older men with melanoma and their female spouses. Arch Dermatol 2009, 145:488-490.
• [16]Janda M, Youl PH, Lowe JB, Elwood M, Ring IT, Aitken JF: Attitudes and intentions in relation to skin checks for early signs of skin cancer. Prev Med 2004, 39:11-18.
• [17]Velozo CA, Lai JS, Mallinson T, Hauselman E: Maintaining instrument quality while reducing items: application of Rasch analysis to a self-report of visual function. J Outcome Meas 2000, 4:667-680.
• [18]Hawthorne G, Densley K, Pallant JF, Mortimer D, Segal L: Deriving utility scores from the SF-36 health instrument using Rasch analysis. Qual Life Res 2008, 17:1183-1193.
• [19]Belvedere SL, de Morton NA: Application of Rasch analysis in health care is increasing and is applied for variable reasons in mobility instruments. J Clin Epidemiol 2010, 63:1287-1297.
• [20]Franchignoni F, Salaffi F, Giordano A, Carotti M, Ciapetti A, Ottonello M: Rasch analysis of the 22 knee injury and osteoarthritis outcome score–physical function items in Italian patients with knee osteoarthritis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2013, 94:480-487.
• [21]Cook CE, Richardson JK, Pietrobon R, Braga L, Silva HM, Turner D: Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae: Validation of the NHANES ADL scale in a sample of patients with report of cervical pain: factor analysis, item response theory analysis, and line item validity. Disabil Rehabil 2006, 28:929-935.
• [22]Janda M, Baade PD, Youl PH, Aitken JF, Whiteman DC, Gordon L, Neale RE: The skin awareness study: promoting thorough skin self-examination for skin cancer among men 50 years or older. Contemp Clin Trials 2010, 31:119-130.
• [23]Auster J, Neale R, Youl P, Baade P, Gordon L, Aitken J, Whiteman D, Janda M: Characteristics of men aged 50 years or older who do not take up skin self-examination following an educational intervention. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2012, 67:e57-e58.
• [24]Janda M, Neale RE, Youl P, Whiteman DC, Gordon L, Baade PD: Impact of a video-based intervention to improve the prevalence of skin self-examination in men 50 years or older: the randomized skin awareness trial. Arch Dermatol 2011, 147:799-806.
• [25]Linacre JM: Sample size and item calibration stability. Rasch Meas Trans 1994, 7:328.
• [26]Bond TG, Fox CM: Applying the Rasch Model: Fundamental Measurement in the Human Sciences. New York: Routledge; 2012.
• [27]Fox CM, Jones JA: Uses of Rasch modeling in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 1998, 45:30.
• [28]Linacre J: Winstep-Rasch Model Computer Program. Version 3.69. 1.16. 2010.
• [29]Wright BD, Linacre JM, Gustafson J, Martin-Lof P: Reasonable mean-square fit values. Rasch Meas Trans 1994, 8:370.
• [30]Penfield RD: DIFAS 5.0 - Differential Item Functioning Analysis System 2012.
• [31]Kelly JW: Melanoma in the elderly–a neglected public health challenge. Med J Aust 1998, 169:403.
• [32]Pollitt RA, Geller AC, Brooks DR, Johnson TM, Park ER, Swetter SM: Efficacy of skin self-examination practices for early melanoma detection. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2009, 18:3018-3023.
• [33]McPherson M, Elwood M, English DR, Baade PD, Youl PH, Aitken JF: Presentation and detection of invasive melanoma in a high-risk population. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology 2006, 54:783-792.
• [34]Auster J, Hurst C, Neale RE, Youl P, Whiteman DC, Baade P, Janda M: Determinants of uptake of whole-body skin self-examination in older men. Behav Med 2013, 39:36-43.
• [35]Lim SM, Rodger S, Brown T: Using Rasch analysis to establish the construct validity of rehabilitation assessment tools. Int J Ther Rehabil 2009, 16:251-260.
• [36]H-f C, Lin K-c W, C-y CC-l: Rasch validation and predictive validity of the action research arm test in patients receiving stroke rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2012, 93:1039-1045.
• [37]Andrich D: A rating formulation for ordered response categories. Psychometrika 1978, 43:561-573.
• [38]Andrich D: Rasch Models for Measurement. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1988
• [39]Fischer DG, Fick C: Measuring social desirability: short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. Educ Psychol Meas 1993, 53:417-424.