Quality of Life Research

, Volume 15, Issue 5, pp 933–940 | Cite as

Measuring Psychological Consequences of Screening: Adaptation of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire into Dutch

  • A. J. Rijnsburger
  • M. L. Essink-Bot
  • E. van As
  • J. Cockburn
  • H. J. de Koning


Objective: To assess the psychometric properties of a Dutch adaptation of an originally Australian instrument measuring the psychological impact of breast cancer screening. Methods: The three subscales (emotional, physical, social) of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) underwent formal linguistic and cultural translation. A total of 524 women under intensive surveillance because of increased breast cancer risk were asked to complete the questionnaire at 2 months prior to screening, at the day of the screening visit preceding the screening, and 1–4 weeks after screening. Acceptability, score distribution, internal consistency, scale structure, responsiveness to change and construct validity were analysed. Results: Response rates were high (98–94%) and there were very few missing answers and non-unique answers. All scales had Cronbach’s αs > 0.70. The physical and social subscale showed ceiling effects. The item-own scale correlations were only slightly higher than the corresponding item-other scale correlations. Factor analysis showed that the assumed three separate subscales were replicated in our study. Pre- and post-screening effect sizes for the emotional scale were larger than for the other two scales. All PCQ scales correlated with the scales of two other psychological measures (p ≤ 0.01). The emotional scale and the total PCQ score were able to differentiate between subgroups varying in affective risk perception (p ≤ 0.01). Conclusion: The Dutch PCQ is useful in measuring psychological impact among women under intensive surveillance because of high breast cancer risk.


Breast cancer Cross-cultural adaptation High-risk Psychological morbidity Screening 



Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale


Impact of Event Scale


Magnetic Resonance Imaging


Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study


Psychological Consequences Questionnaire


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Kriege, M, Brekelmans, CTM, Boetes, C,  et al. 2004Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predispositionN Engl J Med351427437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Warner, E, Plewes, DB, Hill, KA,  et al. 2004Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examinationJ Am Med Assoc29213171325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rijnsburger, AJ, Essink-Bot, ML, Dooren, S,  et al. 2004Impact of screening for breast cancer in high-risk women on health-related quality of lifeBr J Cancer916976PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cockburn, J, De Luise, T, Hurley, S, Clover, K 1992Development and validation of the PCQ: A questionnaire to measure the psychological consequences of screening mammographySoc Sci Med3411291134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cockburn, J, Staples, M, Hurley, SF, Luise, T 1994Psychological consequences of screening mammographyJ Med Screen1712PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ong, G, Austoker, J, Brett, J 1997Breast screening: Adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre studyJ Med Screen4158168PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brett, J, Austoker, J, Ong, G 1998Do women who undergo further investigation for breast screening suffer adverse psychological consequences? A multi-centre follow-up study comparing different breast screening result groups five months after their last breast screening appointmentJ Public Health Med20396403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lowe, JB, Balanda, KP, Mar, C, Hawes, E 1999Psychologic distress in women with abnormal findings in mass mammography screeningCancer8511141118PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Bowland, L, Cockburn, J, Cawson, J, Anderson, HC, Moorehead, S, Kenny, M 2003Counselling interventions to address the psychological consequences of screening mammography: A randomised trialPatient Educ Couns49189198PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Brodersen, J, Thorsen, H 2003Psychosocial consequences of false positive screening mammography – an adaptation of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ) into Danish. Abstract 1265Qual Life Res12798Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brodersen, J, Thorsen, H, Cockburn, J 2004The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammographyJ Med Screen113944PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Guillemin, F, Bombardier, C, Beaton, D 1993Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelinesJ Clin Epidemiol4614171432PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kriege, M, Brekelmans, CTM, Boetes, C,  et al. 2001MRI screening for breast cancer in women with familial or genetic predisposition: Design of the Dutch National Study (MRISC)Fam Cancer1163168PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bland, JM, Altman, DG 1997Cronbach’s alphaBr Med J314572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jolliffe, IT, Morgan, BJT 1992Principal component analysis and exploratory factor analysisStat Methods Med Res16995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Staquet, MJ, Hays, RD, Fayers, PM 1998Quality of Life Assessment in Clinical Trials, Methods and PracticeOxford University PressOxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cohen, J 1977Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral SciencesAcademic PressNew YorkGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zigmond, AS, Snaith, RP 1983The hospital anxiety and depression scaleActa Psychiatr Scand67361370PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Horowitz, M, Wilner, N, Alvarez, W 1979Impact of Event Scale: A measure of subjective stressPsychosom Med41209218PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Dooren, S, Rijnsburger, AJ, Seynaeve, C,  et al. 2004Psychological distress in women at increased risk for breast cancer: The role of risk perceptionEur J Cancer4020562063PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Rijnsburger
    • 1
    • 2
  • M. L. Essink-Bot
    • 1
  • E. van As
    • 1
  • J. Cockburn
    • 3
  • H. J. de Koning
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Department of Medical Oncology, Erasmus MC – Daniel den Hoed Cancer CenterUniversity Medical Center RotterdamRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Health, School of Medical Practice and Population HealthUniversity of NewcastleNewcastleAustralia

Personalised recommendations