Adaptation of the Breast Cancer Stigma Scale to Turkish

Abstract

Practical measures are needed for clinicians and researchers to identify and effectively manage stigmatization in breast cancer survivors. This study aimed to translate, cross-culturally adapt and validate the Breast Cancer Stigma Scale (BCSS) for use in Turkish. This methodological study was conducted with women with breast cancer in a hospital in Istanbul between March and October 2023. The Turkish version of the BCSS was prepared with translation, back-translation and expert review. Data were obtained using the personal information form and BCSS. Cronbach's alpha, Mc Donalds Omega analysis and item analysis were performed for reliability. Test-retest reliability was measured by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). CVI was determined for content validity. EFA and CFA were performed for construct validity, and fit index values were examined. Ceiling and floor effects were also evaluated. The Content Validity Index of the scale was 0.974. The item-total score correlations of the scale, which includes 15 items and four subscales, were between 0.369 and 0.663, and the factor load values were between 0.404 and 0.799. Construct validity goodness-of-fit indices were acceptable. There was a significant difference between the lower and upper 27% groups of the participants' scores from the scale for ceiling or floor effects (p<0.05). Cronbach coefficient for internal consistency was 0.881. ICC was found to be high (0.952; p=0.000) and there was no difference between test-retest values (p>0.05). We concluded that the Turkish version of the BCSS has adequate psychometric properties as per the best international recommendations. The BCSS adapted to Turkish had good validity and reliability.

Keywords

• Breast cancer
• Reliability
• Scale
• Scale adaptation
• Stigma
• Validity.

Ethical Statement

Ethics committee approval was received for this study from the University of Health Sciences, Hamidiye Ethics Committee of Health Sciences University (Date: 30.12.2022, Number:28/4).

Meme Kanseri Damgalanma Ölçeğinin Türkçeye uyarlanması

Abstract

Bu araştırmanın amacı Meme Kanseri Damgalanma Ölçeği (MKDÖ)’ni tercüme etmek, kültürlerarası uyarlamasını yapmak ve Türkçede kullanmak için doğrulamaktı. Bu tanımlayıcı ve metodolojik çalışma, 24 Mart-12 Ekim 2023 tarihleri arasında İstanbul ilinde bir devlet Hastanesinde meme kanseri olan kadınlar üzerinde yapıldı. Meme Kanseri Stigma Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonu çeviri, geri çeviri, uzman incelemesi sonucunda hazırlandı. Veriler bireysel tanıtım formu ve MKDÖ ile elde edildi. Ölçeğin güvenirliği için Cronbach alfa incelenmesi ve madde analizi yapıldı. Test-retest güvenirliği sınıf içi korelasyon katsayısı (ICC) ile ölçüldü. İçerik geçerliği için İçerik geçerlilik indeksi (CVI) değeri belirlendi. Yapı geçerliliği için Açıklayıcı ve Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi yapıldı, uyum indeks değerleri incelendi. Taban ve tavan etkileri de değerlendirildi. Ölçeğin CVI değeri 0.974 bulundu. On beş madde ve dört alt boyut içeren ölçeğin madde total skor korelasyonları 0.369 ile 0.663 arasında, ölçeğin faktör yükü değerleri 0.404 ile 0.799 arasındaydı. Yapı geçerliği uyum iyiliği indeksleri kabul edilebilir düzeydeydi. Tavan veya zemin etkileri için katılımcıların ölçekten aldıkları puanların alt ve üst %27’lik grupları arasında anlamlı fark olduğu belirlendi (p<0.05). İç tutarlılık için yapılan Cronbach coefficient 0,881 bulundu. Ölçüm kararlılığını değerlendirmek için test retest güvenirliği ICC ile incelendi ve yüksek bulundu (0,952; p=0.000). Test retest değerleri arasında fark yoktu (p>0.05). MKDÖ’nin Türkçe versiyonunun en iyi uluslararası tavsiyelere uygun olarak yeterli psikometrik özelliklere sahip olduğu sonucuna vardık. Türkçe’ye uyarlanan MKDÖ’nin geçerlilik ve güvenilirliği yüksek düzeydeydi.

Keywords

• Meme kanseri
• Güvenilirlik
• Ölçek
• Ölçek uyarlama
• Damgalanma
• Geçerlilik.

References

1. Akgül, A. (2005). Factor analysis. Statistical Analysis Techniques in medical research. SPSS implementations, 2.Ed, pp: 441.
2. Akgül, A., & Çevik, O. (2003). Statistical Analysis Techniques. Ankara: Emek Ofset Ltd. Şti. pp. 417-23.
3. Alpar, R. (2018). Applied Statistics and Validity-Reliability with Examples from Sports, Health and Education Sciences. Ankara: Detay.
4. Baxter, N.N. (1998). The Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire the design and testing of a disease specific measure. A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Department of Medical Sciences University of Toronto.
5. 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). 2000;25(24):3186-91. https:// doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.
6. Bray, F., Laversanne, M., Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., Soerjomataram, I. & Jemal, A. (2024). Global cancer statistics 2022: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin.74(3):229-263. doi: 10.3322/caac.21834. Epub 2024 Apr 4. PMID: 38572751.
7. Bu, X., Li, S., Cheng, A.S.K., Ng, P.H.F., Xu, X., Xia, Y., & Liu, X. (2022). Breast Cancer Stigma Scale: A reliable and valid stigma measure for patients with breast cancer. Front Psychol. Jun 10;13:841280. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.841280. PMID: 35756211; PMCID: PMC9226439. Büyüköztürk, Ş., (2011). Handbook of data analysis for social sciences. Ankara: Pegema Publish.
8. Ceylan, E., Rizalar, S. (2022). Turkish validity and reliability of body image after breast cancer questionnaire. J Educ Res Nurs.19(2):182-190.

9. Chen, Y., Li, Z., Peng, J., Shen, L., & Shi, J. (2020). Development of a Care Bundle for Stroke Survivors with Psychological Symptoms: Evidence Summary and Delphi Study. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020:7836024. Published 2020 Jun 29. doi:10.1155/2020/7836024.
10. Cho, J., Choi, E.K., Kim, S.Y., Shin, D.W., Cho, B.L., Kim, C.H., et.al. (2013). Association between cancer stigma and depression among cancer survivors: a nationwide survey in Korea, Psychooncology, 22, 2372–2378. doi: 10.1002/pon.3302
11. Çapık, C., Gözüm, S., & Aksayan, S. (2018). Stages of intercultural scale adaptation, language and cultural adaptation: an updated guide. Florence Nightingale J Nurs.26(3):199-210.
12. Çevik, B., Kav, S., Kaynar, P., Sahin, Z.K., Tekcan, B., & Ülker, Ş. (2023). Turkish validity and reliability of the Cancer Stigma Scale (CASS-T). Palliat Support Care. 2023 Feb;21(1):100-107. doi: 10.1017/S1478951522000554. PMID: 35699122.
13. Danacı, E. (2023). Meme kanseri hastalarında İçselleştirilmiş stigmatizasyon ve ayrımcılık algısının belirlenmesi: bir ölçek geliştirme çalışması Ondokuz Mayıs Üniversitesi, Lisansüstü Eğitim Enstitüsü, Samsun.
14. Davis, L.L.(1992). “Instrument review: Getting the most from a panel of experts”. Applied Nursing Research. 5: 194-197.
15. Dewan, M., Hassouneh D., Song M., & Lyons K. S. (2020). Development of the breast cancer stigma scale for arab patients. Asia Pacific J. Oncol. Nurs. 7 295–300. 10.4103/apjon.apjon_14_20.
16. Fang, S. Y., Shu, B. C., & Chang, Y. J. (2013). The effect of breast reconstruction surgery on body image among women after mastectomy: a meta-analysis. Breast cancer research and treatment, 137(1), 13–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-012-2349-1
17. Fujisawa, D., Umezawa, S., Fujimori, M., & Miyashita, M. (2020). Prevalence and associated factors of perceived cancer-related stigma in Japanese cancer survivors. Jpn. J. Clin. Oncol. 50 1325–1329. 10.1093/jjco/hyaa135.
18. Gözüm S, & Aksayan S. (2003). A guide for transcultural adaptation of the scale ıı:pscyhometric characteristics and cross-cultural comparisons. Turk J Nurs Res. 5:3-14.
19. Güngör, D. A guide to the development and adaptation of measurement instruments in psychology. Turkish Psychology Articles. 2016;19(38):104-112.
20. Hofsø, K., Miaskowski, C., Bjordal, K., Cooper, B.A. & Rustøen, T. (2012). Previous Chemotherapy influences the symptom experience and quality of life of women with breast cancer before radiation therapy. Cancer Nurs. 35: 167-177.
21. Jex, S.M. Britt, T.W. (2008). Organizational Phsycology. A scientist-Practitioner Approach. Nex Jersey: John Wiley&Sons. 211-245.
22. Jin, R., Xie, T., Zhang, L., Gong, N., & Zhang, J. (2021). Stigma and its influencing factors among breast cancer survivors in China: A cross-sectional study. European journal of oncology nursing : the official journal of European Oncology Nursing Society, 52, 101972. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2021.101972
23. Karagöz, Y. (2019). Spss Amos Meta Applied Statistical Analysis. Çankaya: Nobel Academic. Kartal, M., Bardakçı, S.(2018). Reliability and Validity Analyses in Applied Examples of SPSS and AMOS. Ankara: Akademisyen Kitapevi.
24. Link, B. G., Mirotznik, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1991). The effectiveness of stigma coping orientations: can negative consequences of mental illness labeling be avoided? J. Health Soc. Behav. 32 302–320. 10.2307/2136810.
25. Link, B. G., Struening, E. L., Neese-Todd S., Asmussen, S., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). The consequences of stigma for the self-esteem of people with mental illnesses. Psychiatr. Serv. 52 1621–1626. 10.1176/appi.ps.52.12.1621
26. Meacham, E., Orem, J., Nakigudde, G., Zujewski, J.A., & Rao, D. (2016). Exploring stigma as a barrier to cancer service engagement with breast cancer survivors in Kampala, Uganda.. 25:1206-1211.
27. Ohaeri, J.U., Campbell, O.B., Ilesanmil, A.O. & Ohaeri, B.M.(1998). Göğüs ve serviks kanseri olan Nijeryalı kadınların psikososyal kaygıları. Psiko Onkol. 7, 494–501. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-1611(199811/12)7:6<494::AID-PON331>3.0.CO;2-W.
28. Phelan, S. M., Griffin, J. M., Jackson, G. L., Zafar, S. Y., Hellerstedt, W., Stahre, M., et al. (2013). Stigma, perceived blame, self-blame, and depressive symptoms in men with colorectal cancer. Psycho Oncol. 22 65–73. 10.1002/pon.2048.
29. Polit, D. F., Beek, C. T., & Owen, & S. V. (2007). Is the CVI an acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res. Nurs. Health 30 459–467. 10.1002/nur.20199.
30. Rajasooriyar, C. I., Kumar, R., Sriskandarajah, M. H., Gnanathayalan S. W., Kelly J., & Sabesan S. (2021). Exploring the psychosocial morbidity of women undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer in a post-war setting: experiences of Northern Sri Lankan women. Supportive Care Cancer 29 7403–7409. 10.1007/s00520-021-06296-5.
31. Sevim K. (2018). Stigma and women from a social work perspective. Bingöl University Social Sciences Institute Journal. (15):469-480.
32. Sumer, N. (2000). Structural eequation modeling: Basic concepts and applications. Turkish Psychology Articles 2000; 3:49-74.
33. Suwankhong, D., & Liamputtong, P. (2016). Breast cancer treatment: experiences of changes and social stigma among thai women in southern Thailand. Cancer Nurs. 39:213-220.
34. Tabachnick, BG. & Fidell, L.S. (2013). A Practical Approach to using Multivariate Statistics (sixth ed.) Pearson Education.
35. Tezbaşaran, A.A. (2008). Likert-type scale preparation guide (e-book). http:// www.academia.edu/1288035/LikertTipiÖlçekHazırlamaKılavuzu accessed from.
36. Tripathi, L., Datta, S.S., Agrawal, S. K., Chatterjee, S., & Ahmed, R. (2017). Stigma perceived by women following surgery for breast cancer. Indian J. Med. Paediatr. Oncol. 38 146–152. 10.4103/ijmpo.ijmpo_74_16.
37. Wang, Q.X., Bai, Y., Lu, G.F., & Zhang, C.Y. (2017). Perceived health-related stigma among patients with breast cancer. Chin Nurs Res., 4:158-161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnre.2017.10.002.
38. Weiss, M.G., Ramakrishna, J., & Somma, D. (2006). Health-related stigma: rethinking concepts and interventions. Psychol Health Med., 11:277-287.
39. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. [cited on Oct 12, 2020] Available from: http://www. who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/ translation/en/
40. Yildiz, E. & Dedeli, Ç.Ö. (2020). Systematic review: a systematic analysis of research on stigma towards cancer patients. Health and Society. 1: 9-25.