Psychometric evaluation of the Sibling Cancer Needs Instrument (SCNI): an instrument to assess the psychosocial unmet needs of young people who are siblings of cancer patients
- 574 Downloads
The current study sought to establish the psychometric properties of the revised Sibling Cancer Needs Instrument (SCNI) when completed by young people who have a brother or sister with cancer.
The participants were 106 young people aged between 12 and 24 who had a living brother or sister diagnosed with any type or stage of cancer in the last 5 years. They were recruited from multiple settings. The initial step in determining the dimensional structure of the questionnaire was exploratory factor analysis and further assessment followed using Rasch analysis. Construct validity and test–retest reliability (n = 17) were also assessed.
The final SCNI has 45 items and seven domains: information; practical assistance; “time out” and recreation; feelings; support (friends and other young people); understanding from my family; and sibling relationship. There was a reasonable spread of responses across the scale for every item. Rasch analysis results suggested that overall, respondents used the scale consistently. Support for construct validity was provided by the correlations between psychological distress and the SCNI domains. The internal consistency was good to excellent; Cronbach's alphas ranged from 0.78 to 0.94. The test–retest reliability of the overall measure is 0.88.
The SCNI is the first measure of psychosocial unmet needs which has been developed for young people who have a brother or sister with cancer. The sound psychometric properties allow the instrument to be used with confidence. The measure will provide a substantial clinical benefit in highlighting the unmet needs of this population to assist with the prioritisation of targeted supportive care services and evaluating the impact of interventions targeted at siblings.
KeywordsCancer Oncology Needs Sibling Psychosocial Adolescent and young adult
The authors wish to thank the young people who shared their experiences with us in the course of this research. We are also extremely grateful to the reviewers for the thoroughness of their comments and their enthusiasm for this piece of research. Our article has improved much in light of their suggestions.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest. The corresponding author has full control of all primary data and agrees to allow the journal to review the data if requested.
- 1.CanTeen (2012) Youth Cancer Services. http://www.youthcancer.com.au/youth-cancer-services.aspx. Accessed 4 Mar 2013
- 3.Clinical Oncological Society of Australia (2011) Psychosocial management of AYAs diagnosed with cancer: guidance for health professionals. Clinical Oncological Society of Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 5.Patterson P, Millar B, Visser A (2008) The needs of young people who have a sibling with cancer: report on the CanTeen National Member Survey for Sibling Members. CanTeen Australia, SydneyGoogle Scholar
- 7.Franklin M, Patterson P, Ross-Buckton A (2012) Adolescent and young adult siblings of cancer patients in the Australian health context: an exploration of health providers' perceptions. Symposium title: What can we learn from Australian and United Kingdom (UK) adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer psychological research and practice: a CanTeen and Teenage Cancer Trust Symposium. In: International Psycho-Oncology Society 14th World Congress, Brisbane, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
- 14.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011) Young Australians: their health and wellbeing 2011. AIHW, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 15.Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS (2001) Using multivariate statistics, 4th edn. Pearson, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 17.Rasch G (1960) Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
- 18.Andrich D, Lyne A, Sheridan B, Luo G (2003) RUMM 2020. RUMM Laboratory, PerthGoogle Scholar
- 20.George D, Mallery P (2003) SPSS for Windows step by step: a simple guide and reference. 11.0 update, 4th edn. Alllyn & Bacon, BostonGoogle Scholar
- 21.Neal AJ, Hoskin PJ (2009) Clinical oncology: basic principles and practice, 4th edn. Hodder Arnold, LondonGoogle Scholar
- 22.Nunnally J, Bernstein I (1994) Psychometric theory, 3rd edn. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hodgkinson K, Butow P, Hobbs KM, Hunt GE, Lo SK, Wain G (2007) Assessing unmet supportive needs in partners of cancer survivors: the development and evaluation of the Cancer Survivors' Partners Unmet Needs measure (CaSPUN). Psychooncology 16:805–813. doi: 10.1002/pon.1138 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Cohen J (1988) Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd edn. Lawrence Erlbaum, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
- 25.McDonald FEJ, Patterson P, White KJ, Butow P, Bell ML (2013) Predictors of unmet needs and psychological distress in adolescent and young adult siblings of people diagnosed with cancer. (in preparation)Google Scholar
- 26.Clinton-McHarg T, Carey M, Sanson-Fisher R, D'este C, Shakeshaft A (2012) Preliminary development and psychometric evaluation of an unmet needs measure for adolescents and young adults with cancer: the Cancer Needs Questionnaire—Young People (CNQ-YP). Health Qual Life Outcome 10:13. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-10-13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Patterson P, Pearce A, Slawitschka E (2011) The initial development of an instrument to assess the psychosocial needs and unmet needs of young people who have a parent with cancer: piloting the Offspring Cancer Needs Instrument (OCNI). Support Care Cancer 19(8):1165–1174. doi: 10.1007/s00520-010-0933-7 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2011) Cancer in adolescents and young adults in Australia 2011. AIHW, CanberraGoogle Scholar