Skip to main content
Log in

Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C)

  • Published:
Quality of Life Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C) is a systematic and comprehensive needs assessment tool for the family caregivers. The purpose of this project was twofold: (1) to adapt the CNAT-C to Mainland China’s cultural context and (2) to evaluate the psychometric properties of the newly adapted Chinese CNAT-C.

Methods

Cross-cultural adaptation of the original CNAT-C was performed according to published guidelines. A pilot study was conducted in Mainland China with 30 Chinese family cancer caregivers. A subsequent validation study was conducted with 205 Chinese cancer caregivers from Mainland China. Construct validity was determined through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Reliability was determined using internal consistency and test–retest reliability.

Results

The split-half coefficient for the overall Chinese CNAT-C scale was 0.77. Principal component analysis resulted in an eight-factor structure explaining 68.11 % of the total variance. The comparative fit index (CFI) was 0.91 from the modified model confirmatory factor analysis. The Chi-square divided by degrees of freedom was 1.98, and the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA) was 0.079. In relation to the known-group validation, significant differences were found in the Chinese CNAT-C scale according to various caregiver characteristics. Internal consistency was high for the Chinese CNAT-C reaching a Cronbach α value of 0.94. Test–retest reliability was 0.85.

Conclusions

The newly adapted Chinese CNAT-C scale possesses adequate validity, test–retest reliability, and internal consistency and therefore may be used to ascertain holistic health and support needs of cancer patients’ family caregivers in Mainland China.

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. Matsuda, T., & Saika, K. (2012). Worldwide burden of cancer incidence in 2002 extrapolated from cancer incidence in five continents, vol. ix. Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology, 42, 1111–1112.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization. (2014). GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated cancer incidence, mortality and prevalence worldwide in 2012. http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx. Accessed 19 Dec 2013.

  3. American Cancer Society. (2013). Cancer facts & figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society.

  4. Francis, L. E., Bowman, K. F., Kypriotakis, G., & Rose, J. H. (2011). Relationships and emotional wellbeing among African American and white advanced cancer caregivers. Patient Education and Counseling, 85, 446–453.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Francis, L. E., Worthington, J., Kypriotakis, G., & Rose, J. H. (2010). Relationship quality and burden among caregivers for late-stage cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18, 1429–1436.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Deeken, J. F., Taylor, K. L., Mangan, P., Yabroff, K. R., & Ingham, J. M. (2003). Care for the caregivers: A review of self-report instruments developed to measure the burden, needs, and quality of life of informal caregivers. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 26, 922–953.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Schulz, R., & Beach, S. R. (1999). Caregiving as a risk factor for mortality: The caregiver health effects study. JAMA, 282, 2215–2219.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Vanderwerker, L. C., Laff, R. E., Kadan-Lottick, N. S., McColl, S., & Prigerson, H. G. (2005). Psychiatric disorders and mental health service use among caregivers of advanced cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 23, 6899–6907.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Shin, D. W., Park, J. H., Shim, E. J., Park, J. H., Choi, J. Y., Kim, S. G., & Park, E. C. (2011). The development of a comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer-caregivers in patient–caregiver dyads. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 1342–1352.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Tringali, C. A. (1986). The needs of family members of cancer patients. Oncology Nursing Forum, 13, 65–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Li, Q.-P. (2012). Research status of the cancer family caregivers. Journal of Nursing, 47, 1132–1134.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dl, F. (2002). Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC.

    Google Scholar 

  13. 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), 25, 3186–3191.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Chaaya, M., Osman, H., Naassan, G., & Mahfoud, Z. (2010). Validation of the Arabic version of the cohen perceived stress scale (PSS-10) among pregnant and postpartum women. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 111.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420–428.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Osburn, H. G. (2000). Coefficient alpha and related internal consistency reliability coefficients. Psychological Methods, 5, 343–355.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hh, H. (1967). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fayers, P. M., Hopwood, P., Harvey, A. E. A., Girling, D. J., Machin, D., & Stephens, R. (1997). Quality of life assessment in clinical trials—guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: The UK medical research council experience. European Journal of Cancer, 33(1), 20–28.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Batista-Foguet, J. M., Coenders, G., & Alonso, J. (2004). Confirmatory factor analysis. Its role on the validation of health related questionnaires. Med Clin (Barc), 122(Suppl 1), 21–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Devins, G. M., Dion, R., Pelletier, L. G., Shapiro, C. M., Abbey, S., Raiz, L. R., et al. (2001). Structure of lifestyle disruptions in chronic disease: A confirmatory factor analysis of the illness intrusiveness ratings scale. Medical Care, 39(10), 1097–1104.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Bilbao, A., Mar, J., Mar, B., Arrospide, A., de Aragón, G. M., & Quintana, J. M. (2009). Validation of the Spanish translation of the questionnaire for the obesity-related problems scale. Obesity Surgery, 19(10), 1393–1400.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Given, B. A., Given, C. W., & Kozachik, S. (2001). Family support in advanced cancer. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 51, 213–231.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Sanchez, R., Ballesteros, M., & Arnold, B. J. (2011). Validation of the FACT-G scale for evaluating quality of life in cancer patients in Colombia. Quality of Life Research, 20, 19–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lyons, R. A., Wareham, K., Lucas, M., Price, D., Williams, J., & Hutchings, H. A. (1999). SF-36 Scores vary by method of administration: Implications for study design. Journal of Public Health, 21(1), 41–45.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Weitzner, M. A., Jacobsen, P. B., Wagner, H., Friedland, J., & Cox, C. (1999). The caregiver quality of life index-cancer (CQOLC) scale: Development and validation of an instrument to measure quality of life of the family caregiver of patients with cancer. Quality of Life Research, 8, 55–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors were partially supported by the grants from Xi’an Jiaotong Graduate Fund, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81100628). We thank all the study participants for volunteering to participate in the study. We would also like to thank Dr. Qian Chen from Philadelphia College in the USA for the manuscript editing.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. There are no personal or financial conflicts of interest with regard to this work. The authors declare that they have the full control of all primary data, and that they agree to allow the journal to review their data if requested.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yin-Ping Zhang.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, YP., Zhao, XS., Zhang, B. et al. Cross-cultural adaptation and psychometric assessment of the Chinese version of the comprehensive needs assessment tool for cancer caregivers (CNAT-C). Qual Life Res 24, 1607–1614 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0891-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0891-5

Keywords

Navigation