Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Evaluation of a revised instrument to assess the needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Supportive Care in Cancer Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

This study was conducted to assess the face, content and construct validity and the internal validity of the revised version of an instrument to measure the perceived needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer [Prostate Cancer Needs Questionnaire version 2 (PCNQv2)]. The PCNQ was constructed in two parts with Part 1 measuring needs at diagnosis and initial treatment and Part 2 measuring current needs.

Methods

A random sample of 650 men diagnosed with prostate cancer attending a Urologist of the Hunter Urology Group in Newcastle, New South Wales, Australia, were invited to participate in the study and sent by post the self-administered PCNQ. Information was provided on 145 men who were considered ineligible to participate. Completed questionnaires were received from 300 men.

Results

The principal components method of factor analysis with varimax orthogonal rotation identified eight factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, which together accounted for 68% of the variance in Part 1 of the PCNQ. Likewise, six factors were identified in Part 2 which accounted for 68% of the variance. Internal reliability coefficients (Cronbach’s alpha) were adequate for identified factors with values ranging from 0.71 to 0.90 for Part 1, and from 0.80 to 0.92 for Part 2.

Conclusions

These results support the validity and reliability of the PCNQv2 to assess the perceived needs experienced by men diagnosed with prostate cancer.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. AIHW, AACR, Cancer in Australia 2000. AIHW cat. no. CAN 18. 2003, AIHW (Cancer Series no.23), Canberra

  2. Coates M, Tracey E (2001) Cancer in New South Wales. Incidence and mortality 1998 and incidence for selected cancers 1999. NSW Central Cancer Registry. Cancer Research and Registers Division. NSW Cancer Council

  3. Litwin MS et al (1998) Quality-of-life outcomes in long-term survivors of advanced prostate cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 21(4):327–332

    Google Scholar 

  4. Skeel RT (1993) Quality of life dimensions that are the most important to cancer patients. Oncology 7:55–61

    Google Scholar 

  5. Ware JE, Davies-Avery A, Stewart AL (1978) The measurement and meaning of patient satisfaction: a review of the literature. Health Med Care Serv Rev 1:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  6. Anderson PJ et al (1998) Prostate disease patients: planning services to meet their coping needs. Urol Nurs 18(3):195–197

    Google Scholar 

  7. Davis C et al (1998) Needs assessment of rural and remote women travelling to the city for breast cancer treatment. Aust N Z J Public Health 22(5):525–527

    Google Scholar 

  8. Foot GG, Sanson-Fisher R (1995) Measuring the unmet needs of people living with cancer. Cancer Forum 19(2):131–135

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sanson-Fisher R et al (2000) The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Supportive Care Review Group. Cancer 88(1):226–237

    Google Scholar 

  10. Bonevski B et al (2000) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of patients with care. Cancer 88:217–225

    Google Scholar 

  11. McDowell I, Newell C (1996) Measuring health: a guide to rating scales and questionnaires, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bowling A (1997) Measuring health: a review of quality of life measurement scales, 2nd edn. Open University Press, Buckingham

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fletcher RH, Fletcher SW, Wagner EH (1988) Clinical epidemiology: the essentials, 2nd edn. Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore

    Google Scholar 

  14. Streiner DL, Norman GR (1991) Health measurement scales: a practical guide to their development and use. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  15. Windsor R, Baranowski T, Clark N, Cutter G (1994) Evaluation of health promotion, health education, and disease prevention programs, 2nd edn. Mayfield Publishing, Mountain View, CA

    Google Scholar 

  16. Cronbach LJ (1951) Coefficient alpha and the internal structure tests. Psychometrika 16:297–334

    Google Scholar 

  17. Duke JM et al (2003) Evaluation of an instrument to assess the needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Cancer 97:993–1001

    Google Scholar 

  18. Aaronson NK et al (1993) The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst 85:365–376

    Google Scholar 

  19. Duke JM et al (2001) The perceived needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Australas Epidemiol 8:34–43

    Google Scholar 

  20. Converse JM, Presser S (1986) Survey questions: handcrafting the standardized questionnaire. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills, CA

    Google Scholar 

  21. Kim J, Mueller CW (1978) Factor analysis: statistical methods and practical issues. Sage Publications, Beverley Hills

    Google Scholar 

  22. StataCorp (1999) Stata statistical software: release 6.0. Stata Corporation, College Station, TX

    Google Scholar 

  23. Schafer JL (1998) Multiple imputation: a primer. The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

    Google Scholar 

  24. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (1996) Using multivariate statistics, 3rd edn. HarperCollins College, New York

    Google Scholar 

  25. Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ (1987) Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 34(4):414–424

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kass RA, Tinsley HEA (1979) Factor analysis. J Leis Res 11:120–138

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kaplan RM, Saccuzzo DP (1982) Psychological testing: principles, applications, and issues. Brooks/Cole Publishing, California

    Google Scholar 

  28. Nunnally JC (1978) Psychometric theory, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  29. Boberg EW et al (2003) Assessing the unmet information, support and care delivery needs of men with prostate cancer. Patient Educ Couns 49(3):233–242

    Google Scholar 

  30. Dahn JR et al (2004) Sexual functioning and quality of life after prostate cancer treatment: considering sexual desire. Urology 63(2):273–277

    Google Scholar 

  31. Clark JA et al (2003) Patients’ perceptions of quality of life after treatment for early prostate cancer. J Clin Oncol 21(20):3777–3784

    Google Scholar 

  32. Hawe P, Degeling D, Hall J (1990) Evaluating health promotion: a health worker’s guide. Maclennan + Petty, Sydney

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by a research grant from The University of Newcastle.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janine M. Duke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Duke, J.M., Treloar, C.J. & Byles, J.E. Evaluation of a revised instrument to assess the needs of men diagnosed with prostate cancer. Support Care Cancer 13, 895–903 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0808-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-005-0808-5

Keywords

Navigation