Skip to main content

Measuring the psychological consequences of breast cancer screening: a confirmatory factor analysis of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire

Quality of Life Research volume 18, pages 597–604 (2009)Cite this article

Abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Elmore, J. G., Armstrong, K., Lehman, C. D., & Fletcher, S. W. (2005). Screening for breast cancer. Journal of the American Medical Association, 293, 1245–1256. doi:10.1001/jama.293.10.1245.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Armstrong, K., Moye, E., Williams, S., Berlin, J. A., & Reynolds, E. E. (2007). Screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age: A systematic review for the American College of Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146, 516–526.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Brewer, N. T., Salz, T., & Lillie, S. E. (2007). Systematic review: The long-term effects of false-positive mammograms. Annals of Internal Medicine, 146, 502–510.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Brett, J., & Austoker, J. (2001). Women who are recalled for further investigation for breast screening: Psychological consequences 3 years after recall and factors affecting re-attendance. Journal of Public Health Medicine, 23(4), 292–300. doi:10.1093/pubmed/23.4.292.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Meystre-Agustoni, G., Paccaud, F., Jeannin, A., & Dubois-Arber, F. (2001). Anxiety in a cohort of Swiss women participating in a mammographic screening programme. Journal of Medical Screening, 8, 213–219. doi:10.1136/jms.8.4.213.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Olsson, P., Armelius, K., Nordahl, G., Lenner, P., & Westman, G. (1999). Women with false positive screening mammograms: How do they cope? Journal of Medical Screening, 6, 89–93.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Brodersen, J., Thorsen, H., & Cockburn, J. (2004). The adequacy of measurement of short and long-term consequences of false-positive screening mammography. Journal of Medical Screening, 11, 39–44. doi:10.1258/096914104772950745.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983). Manual for the state-trait anxiety inventory (form Y). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. London: NFER-Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Cockburn, J., De Luise, T., Hurley, S., & Clover, K. (1992). Development and validation of the PCQ: A questionnaire to measure the psychological consequences of screening mammography. Social Science and Medicine, 34(10), 1129–1134. doi:10.1016/0277-9536(92)90286-Y.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Cockburn, J., Staples, M., Hurley, S. F., & De Luise, T. (1994). Psychological consequences of screening mammography. Journal of Medical Screening, 1, 7–12.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Rijnsburger, A. J., Essink-Bot, M. L., van As, E., Cockburn, J., & de Koning, H. J. (2006). Measuring psychological consequences of screening: Adaptation of the psychological consequences questionnaire into Dutch. Quality of Life Research, 15, 933–940. doi:10.1007/s11136-005-5093-8.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Ong, G., Austoker, J., & Brett, J. (1997). Breast screening: Adverse psychological consequences one month after placing women on early recall because of a diagnostic uncertainty. A multicentre study. Journal of Medical Screening, 4, 158–168.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4, 272–299. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus 4.2. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: an interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25, 173–180. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238.

    PubMed  Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Little, T. D. (1997). Mean and covariance structures (MACS) analyses of cross-cultural data: Practical and theoretical issues. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 32(1), 53–76. doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3201_3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103(3), 391–410. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Muthén, B. O. (1989). Latent variable modeling in heterogeneous populations. Psychometrika, 54, 557–585. doi:10.1007/BF02296397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16–29. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(4), 599–620. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Brodersen, J., Thorsen, H., & Kreiner, S. (2007). Validation of a condition-specific measure for women having an abnormal screening mammography. Value in Health, 10(4), 294–304. doi:10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00184.x.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London, SE14 6NW, UK

    Andrew Cooper

  2. School of Behavioural and Social Sciences and Humanities, University of Ballarat, Ballarat, VIC, Australia

    Helen Aucote

Authors
  1. Andrew Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Helen Aucote
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew Cooper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cooper, A., Aucote, H. Measuring the psychological consequences of breast cancer screening: a confirmatory factor analysis of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire. Qual Life Res 18, 597–604 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9472-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9472-4

Keywords

  • Breast cancer
  • Screening
  • Psychological morbidity
  • Confirmatory factor analysis
  • MIMIC