Latent structure and reliability analysis of the measure of body apperception: cross-validation for head and neck cancer Patients
- 227 Downloads
Cancer and its treatments are associated with psychological distress that can negatively impact self-perception, psychosocial functioning, and quality of life. Patients with head and neck cancers (HNC) are particularly susceptible to psychological distress. This study involved a cross-validation of the Measure of Body Apperception (MBA) for HNC patients.
One hundred and twenty-two English-fluent HNC patients between 20 and 88 years of age completed the MBA on a Likert scale ranging from “1 = disagree” to “4 = agree.” We assessed the latent structure and internal consistency reliability of the MBA using Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and Cronbach's coefficient alpha (α), respectively. We determined convergent and divergent validities of the MBA using correlations with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), observer disfigurement rating, and patients' clinical and demographic variables.
The PCA revealed a coherent set of items that explained 38 % of the variance. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was 0.73 and the Bartlett's test of sphericity was statistically significant (χ 2 (28) = 253.64; p < 0.001), confirming the suitability of the data for dimension reduction analysis. The MBA had good internal consistency reliability (α = 0.77) and demonstrated adequate convergent and divergent validities based on statistically significant moderate correlations with the HADS (p < 0.01) and observer rating of disfigurement (p < 0.026) and nonstatistically significant correlations with patients' clinical and demographic variables: tumor location, age at diagnosis, and birth place (all p s > 0.05).
The MBA is a valid and reliable screening measure of body apperception for HNC patients.
KeywordsHead and neck cancer Psychological distress Body apperception Psychometrics Measurement development Cancer control Symptom management Quality of life
Conflict of interests
- 1.American Cancer Society (2012) Cancer facts and figures 2012. American Cancer Society, AtlantaGoogle Scholar
- 2.National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines™) Head and neck cancers version 2. 2011. National Comprehensive Cancer Network, Inc.Google Scholar
- 3.Kim TW, Chung MK, Youm HY et al (2011) Bilateral neck metastases in upper aero-digestive tract cancer: emphasis on the distribution of lymphatic metastases and prognostic implications. J Surg Oncol. doi: 10.1002/jso.22145
- 7.Khariwala SS, Hatsukami D, Hecht SS (2011) Tobacco carcinogen metabolites and DNA adducts as biomarkers in head and neck cancer: potential screening tools and prognostic indicators. Head Neck 25, 10.1002/hed.21705Google Scholar
- 21.Cooley CH (1902) Human nature and the social order. Scribner's, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 29.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2007) Using multivariate statistics, 5th edn. Allyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 30.Comrey AL, Lee HB (1992) A first course in factor analysis, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, HillsdaleGoogle Scholar
- 34.Bartlett MS (1954) A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. J R Stat Soc Series B Stat Methodol 16:296–298Google Scholar
- 36.Thurstone LL (1947) Multiple factor analysis. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 37.Airoldi M, Carzaro M, Raimondo L, Pecorari G, Giordano C, Varetto A, Caldera P, Torta R. Functional and psychological evaluation after flap reconstruction plus radiotherapy in oral cancer. Head & Neck. 2011; 458-468. doi: 10.1002/hed.21471.
- 38.Katz MR, Irish JC, Devins GM, Rodin GM, Gullane PJ. Psychosocial adjustment in head and neck cancer: the impact of disfigurement, gender and social support. Head & Neck. 2003; 103-112. doi: 10.1002/hed.10174