Development and Psychometric Evaluation of the 15-item Bilingual (Malay/English) Cervical Cancer Awareness Scale (CxCAS) for Young Women
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: The success of cervical cancer preventive measures partly relies on the awareness of the high-risk group (including young girls or women who are vulnerable to many risk factors of getting HPV infection which may lead to cervical cancer at a later age) on the importance of screening and basic characteristic of cervical cancer for it to be able to translate into positive behavior in preventing the disease. Hence, this study aimed to develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of the bilingual (English/Malay) Cervical Cancer Awareness Scale (Cx-CAS) among young women aged less than 40 years. Materials and methods: This study evaluates the content validity, face validity, reliability, and construct validity of the newly developed Cx-CAS awareness scale. Two cross-sectional pilot studies were conducted to explore the usefulness of the measuring items and assessed the dimensionality of the construct using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) (n= 322) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) (n=275). Results: Content validity index item level (I-CVI) and universal agreement (UA) were 0.99 and 0.94, respectively. The final Cx-CAS model with four constructs was appropriate (KMO=0.815), with multicollinearity below 0.85, with Cronbach’s alpha reliability of more than 0.70 for all four constructs. The CFA results showed that the Cx-CAS final model has excellent fitness indicated by the Chi-square p-value >0.05, GFI > 0.90, TLI >0.95, CFI >0.96, RMSEA <0.08. Conclusion: The 15-item cervical cancer awareness scale (Cx-CAS) has shown to have excellent psychometric properties and has the potential to be used in cervical cancer awareness surveys among young women with similar cultures, languages, and backgrounds.
Downloads
Article Details
References
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71(3):209–49. doi: 10.3322/caac.21660.
World Health Organization. Global strategy to accelerate the elimination of cervical cancer as a public health problem. Geneva; 2020. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240014107 [Accessed 24 August 2023].
World Health Organization. WHO Cervical Cancer Elimination Initiative: From Call To Action To Global Movement. Geneva; 2023. Available at: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-cervical-cancer-elimination-initiative--from-call-to-action-to-global-movement (Accessed on 24 August 2023).
Adam E, Berkova Z, Daxnerova Z, Icenogle J, Reeves WC, Kaufman RH. Papillomavirus detection: Demographic and behavioral characteristics influencing the identification of cervical disease. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2000;182(2):257–64. doi:10.1016/S0002-9378(00)70208-0
Kawata K, & Koga H. Sexually transmitted infections and cervical cancer: Knowledge and prevention awareness among female university students in Japan. Nurs. Open. 2020; 7:1139–1145. doi: 10.1002/nop2.488
Bhatla N, Aoki D, Sharma DN, Sankaranarayanan R. Cancer of the cervix uteri: 2021 Update. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2021;155(Suppl. 1):28–44. DOI: 10.1002/ijgo.13865
Okunade KS. Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer. J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020 Jul;40(5):602-608. doi: 10.1080/01443615.2019.1634030. Epub 2019 Sep 10. Erratum in: J Obstet Gynaecol. 2020;40(4):590.
Romli R, Shahabudin S, Saddki N, Mokhtar N. Cervical cancer and pap smear screening: Knowledge, attitude and practice among working women in the northern state of Malaysia. Med J Malaysia. 2019;74(1):8–14. PMID: 30846655.
Seng LM, Rosman AN, Khan A, Haris NM, Mustapha NAS, Husaini NSM, et al. Awareness of cervical cancer among women in Malaysia. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2018;12(4):42-48. PMID: 30022903; PMCID: PMC6040851.
Al-Naggar RA, Low W, & Isa ZM. Knowledge and barriers towards cervical cancer screening among young women in Malaysia. Asian. Pac. J. Cancer Prev. 2010; 11:867–873. PMID: 21133593.
Chua B, Ma V, Asjes C, Lim A, Mohseni M, Wee HL. Barriers to and Facilitators of Cervical Cancer Screening among Women in Southeast Asia: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health. 2021; 18(9):4586. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094586
Rahman MA, Yusoff MSB, Roslan NS, Mohammad JAM, Ahmad A. Development and validation of the medical professionals resilience scale. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21(1):1–9. doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06542-w.
Polit DF, Beck CT. The content validity index: Are you sure you know what’s being reported? Critique and recommendations. Res Nurs Heal. 2006; 29(5):489–97. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20147
Yusoff MSB. ABC of Content Validation and Content Validity Index Calculation. Educ Med J. 2019;11(2):49–54. DOI: 10.21315/eimj2019.11.2.6
Polit DF, Beck CT, Owen S V. Focus on research methods: Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Heal. 2007;30(4):459–67. DOI: 10.1002/nur.20199
Thomas SD, Hathaway DK, Arheart KL. Face validity. West J Nurs Res. 1992 Feb;14(1):109-12. doi: 10.1177/019394599201400111.
DeVon HA, Block ME, Moyle-Wright P, Ernst DM, Hayden SJ, Lazzara DJ, Savoy SM, Kostas-Polston E. A psychometric toolbox for testing validity and reliability. J Nurs Scholarsh. 2007;39(2):155-64. doi: 10.1111/j.1547-5069.2007.00161.x.
Yusoff MSB, Arifin WN, Hadie SNH. ABC of questionnaire development and validation for survey research. Educ Med J. 2021;13(1):97–108. DOI: 10.21315/eimj2021.13.1.10
Streiner D, Norman G, Cairney J. Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use (5th edition). Australian and New Zealand journal of public health. 2016:40(3), 294–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12484
Memon MA, Ting H, Hwa CJ, Ramayah T, Chuah F, Cham TH. Sample size for survey research: Review and recommendations. Jounal of Applied Structural Equation Modeling. 2020:4(2), i-xx. DOI:10.47263/JASEM.4(2)01
Hair JF. Multivariate data analysis: An overview. International encyclopedia of statistical science. Berlin: Springer; 2011:904-7. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04898-2_395
Muda H, Loganathan N, Awang Z, Jusoh H, Baba Z. S. Application of theory, methodology and analysis in conducting research: A practical guide to quantitative research and thesis writing. Penerbit UniSZA; 2018: pg 67-68; pg 78-81
Awang Z. SEM Made Simple: A Gentle Approach to Learning Structural Equation Modeling. MPWS Rich Publication; 2015.
Baistaman J, Awang Z, Afthanorhan A, Zulkifli Abdul Rahim M. Developing and Validating the Measurement Model for Financial Literacy Construct Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Humanit Soc Sci Rev. 2020;8(2):413–22. DOI:10.18510/hssr.2020.8247
Schreiber JB, Stage FK, King J, Nora A, Barlow EA. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. J. Educ. Res. 2006; 99: 323–338. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.3200/JOER.99.6.323-338
Zainuddin A. Overview of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). In A Handbook on SEM. Kelantan: University Technology MARA Press; 2012.
Davis LL. Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts. Applied nursing research. 1992; 5(4): 194-197. DOI:10.1016/S0897-1897(05)80008-4
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 7th edition. Pearson; 2019.
Kaiser HF. The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and psychological measurement. 1960; 20(1): 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
Costello AB Osborne J. Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical assessment, research, and evaluation. 2005; 10(1): 7. DOI:10.7275/JYJ1-4868
Barman A. Applied Statistics in Research. Kuala Terengganu: Unisza2015. Pg 29-31
Worthington RL Whittaker TA. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The counseling psychologist. 2006: 34(6), pg 806-838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127
Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951; 16: 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011 Jun 27;2:53-55. doi: 10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Lord FM, Novick MR. Statistical theories of mental test scores. Information Age Publishing: 2008.
Henrysson S. Correction of item-total correlations in item analysis. Psychometrika. 1963; 28(2): 211-218. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289618
Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J. Mark. Res. 1981;18(1): 39-50. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151312
Kline R. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 4th Ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2016
Ministry of Health Malaysia. Clinical Practice Guidelines Management of Cervical Cancer. Second edition. Putrajaya: Malaysia Health Technology Assessment Section (MaHTAS); 2015. Available at: https://www.moh.gov.my/moh/resources/penerbitan/CPG/CPG%20Management%20of%20Cervical%20Cancer%20(Second%20Edition).pdf [Accessed on 24 August 2023].
Saadi AA. Development and Validation of Questionnaire to Assess Knowledge about Cervical Cancer among Women Aged 20 to 65 years in Oman. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2021 Jan 1;22(1):69-74. DOI: 10.31557/APJCP.2021.22.1.69
Özdemir E, Kısa S. Validation of the Turkish Cervical Cancer and Human Papilloma Virus Awareness Questionnaire. Int Nurs Rev. 2016 Sep;63(3):465-72. doi: 10.1111/inr.12299
Vance ME, Keele B. Development and validation of the cervical cancer knowledge and beliefs of Appalachian women questionnaire. J. Nurs. Meas. 2013; 21(3): 477-501. doi: 10.1891/1061-3749.21.3.477.
Urrutia MT, Gajardo M, Padilla O. Development and testing the questionnaire CEC-61: Knowledge about cervical cancer among Chilean adolescents. Women Health. 2018; 58(6):647-660. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2017.1333073.
Floy FJ Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instrument. Psychol. Assess. 1995; 7(3): 286-299. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286
Awang Z, Lim SH, Zainudin NFS. Pendekatan Mudah SEM: Structural Equation Modelling. Bangi: MPWS Rich Resources; 2018.
Roncancio AM, Ward KK, Sanchez IA, Cano MA, Byrd TL, Vernon SW, Fernandez-Esquer ME, Fernandez ME. Using the theory of planned behavior to understand cervical cancer screening among Latinas. Health Educ Behav. 2015 Oct;42(5):621-6. doi: 10.1177/1090198115571364.
Aldohaian AI, Alshammari SA, Arafah DM. Using the health belief model to assess beliefs and behaviors regarding cervical cancer screening among Saudi women: a cross-sectional observational study. BMC Women’s Health. 2019 Dec;19(1):1-2. doi: 10.1186/s12905-018-0701-2.
Munro S, Lewin S, Swart T, Volmink J. A review of health behaviour theories: how useful are these for developing interventions to promote long-term medication adherence for TB and HIV/AIDS?. BMC Public Health. 2007 Dec;7(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-7-104
Sharma H. How short or long should be a questionnaire for any research? Researchers dilemma in deciding the appropriate questionnaire length. Saudi J Anaesth 2022;16:65-8. doi: 10.4103/sja_163_21