Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften E-learning Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
UITGEBREID ZOEKEN
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 8/2010

01-10-2010

Invariance test of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire: do women with breast cancer interpret this measure differently?

Auteurs: Catherine M. Sabiston, Shayna Rusticus, Jennifer Brunet, Meghan H. McDonough, Valerie Hadd, Anita M. Hubley, Peter R. E. Crocker

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 8/2010

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail
    Link delen
publish
Publiceer nu

Abstract

Purpose

To examine whether the meaning and interpretation of body image are similar for breast cancer survivors and women without breast cancer.

Method

Women completed the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire—Appearance Scales as part of two studies. There were 469 women with breast cancer and 385 women without breast cancer. Invariance testing was conducted to examine whether the items assessing the body image dimensions were similar, whether the dimensions were interpreted similarly, whether the items were equally salient and meaningful, and whether there were mean differences on the body image dimensions across the two groups.

Results

The meaning and interpretation of body image dimensions related to appearance evaluation and appearance orientation were similar across the groups, yet some group differences were found for overweight preoccupation and body areas satisfaction (and not testable for self-classified weight). Breast cancer survivors reported a small yet significantly higher mean on appearance evaluation and lower mean on appearance orientation compared to the women without breast cancer.

Conclusions

Meaningful comparisons in body image across cancer and non-cancer women can be made using two of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire—Appearance Scales. The overweight preoccupation subscale could be used to assess body image but should not be used if group mean differences are desirable. Assessing satisfaction with body areas across these groups is not recommended and may introduce systematic bias.
vorige artikel Interference with activities due to pain and fatigue: accuracy of ratings across different reporting periods
volgende artikel The impact of next and back buttons on time to complete and measurement reliability in computer-based surveys
Voetnoten
1
Effect sizes are reported in addition to the statistical test results to indicate the magnitude of the effect size [42]. Kirk’s [43] criteria for interpreting omega-squared may be appropriately applied to interpreting partial eta-squared (η p 2 ) as follows: trivial effect < 0.01, small effect = 0.01 to 0.058, medium effect = 0.059 to 0.137, and large effect ≥ 0.137.
 
2
Phi and Cramer’s V can be interpreted as 0.10 = small effect, 0.30 = medium effect, and 0.50 = large effect.
 
3
The results of the supplemental invariance testing are available from the first author.
 
Literatuur
1.
2.
Baxter, N., Goodwin, P., McLeod, R., et al. (2006). Reliability and validity of the body image after breast cancer questionnaire. Breast Journal, 12, 221–232.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Bloom, J. R., Stewart, S. L., Chang, S., et al. (2004). Then and now: Quality of life of young breast cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology, 13, 147–160.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Dalton, E. J., Rasmussen, V. N., Classen, C. C., et al. (2009). Sexual adjustment and body image scale (SABIS): A new measure for breast cancer patients. Breast Journal, 15, 287–290.CrossRefPubMed
5.
McDonough, M. H., Sabiston, C. M., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2008). An interpretive phenomenological examination of psychosocial changes among breast cancer survivors in their first season of dragon boating. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 425–440.CrossRef
6.
Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Body images: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York: Guilford.
7.
Reboussin, B. A., Rejeski, W. J., Martin, K. A., et al. (2000). Correlates of satisfaction with body function and body appearance in middle- and older aged adults: The activity counseling trial (ACT). Psychology & Health, 15, 239–254.CrossRef
8.
Thompson, K., Heinberg, L., Altabe, M., et al. (1999). Exacting beauty: Theory, assessment, method, and treatment of body image disturbance. Washington DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRef
9.
Cash, T. F., Winstead, B. A., & Janda, J. H. (1986). Body image survey report: The great American shape-up. Psychology Today, 30–37.
10.
Horn, J. L., & McArdle, J. J. (1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Journal of Experimental Aging Research, 18, 117–144.
11.
Rusticus, S. A., & Hubley, A. M. (2006). Measurement invariance of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire: Can we compare across age and gender? Sex Roles, 55, 827–842.CrossRef
12.
Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78–90.CrossRef
13.
14.
Brunet, J., McDonough, M. H., Hadd, V., et al. (2009). The posttraumatic growth inventory: An examination of the factor structure and invariance among breast cancer survivors. Psycho-Oncology. Available online October 27, 2009. doi:10.​1002/​pon.​1640.
15.
Hadd, V., Sabiston, C. M., McDonough, M. H., et al. (2010). Assessing sources of stress in breast cancer survivors involved in dragon boat: Determining stressor dimensions and links to types of treatment. Journal of Women’s Health (in press).
16.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233–255.CrossRef
17.
Rusticus, S. A., Hubley, A. M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2008). Measurement invariance on the Appearance Schemas Inventory-Revised and the Body Image Quality of Life Inventory across age and gender. Assessment, 15, 60–71.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Rock, D. A., Werts, C. E., & Flaugher, R. L. (1978). The use of analysis of covariance structures for comparing the psychometric properties of multiple variables across populations. Behavioral Research, 13, 403–418.
19.
Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4–70.CrossRef
20.
Chan, D. (2000). Detection of differential item functioning on the Kirton Adaptation-Innovation inventory using multiple group mean and covariance structure analyses. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 35, 169–199.CrossRef
21.
Deshon, R. P. (2004). Measures are not invariant across groups with error variance homogeneity. Psychology Science, 46, 137–149.
22.
Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12, 1–26.
23.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2001). LISREL (Version 8.5). Structural equation modeling [Computer Software]. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
24.
Brannick, M. T. (1995). Critical comment on applying covariance structure modeling. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 201–213.CrossRef
25.
Kelloway, K. E. (1995). Structural equation modeling in perspective. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 16, 215–224.CrossRef
26.
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). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
Joreskog, K. G., & Moustaki, I. (2006). Factor analysis of ordinal variables: A comparison of three approaches. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 347–387.CrossRef
28.
Moustaki, I. (2003). A general class of latent variable models for ordinal manifest variables with covariate effects on the manifest and latent variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 56, 337–357.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426.CrossRef
31.
Fobair, P., Stewart, S. L., Chang, S., et al. (2005). Body image and sexual problems in young women with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology, 15, 579–594.CrossRef
32.
Sabiston, C. M., McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2007). Psycho-social experiences of breast cancer survivors involved in a dragon boat program: Exploring links to positive psychological growth. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 419–438.
33.
Ward, A., Kuta, J., & Sanborn, L. (2003). Breast cancer. In L. M. LeMura, S. P. Von Duvillard, et al. (Eds.), Clinical exercise physiology (pp. 405–419). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
34.
Cash, T. F., & Pruzinsky, T. (2002). Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York: Guilford.
35.
White, C. A. (2002). Body images in oncology. In T. F. Cash & T. Pruzinsky (Eds.), Body image: A handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice (pp. 379–386). New York: Gilford.
36.
Muennig, P., Jia, H., Lee, R., et al. (2008). I think therefore I am: Perceived ideal weight as a determinant of health. American Journal of Public Health, 98, 501–506.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Cash, T. F., Jakatdar, T. A., & Flemming Williams, E. (2004). The Body Image Quality of Life Inventory: Further validation with college men and women. Body Image, 1, 279–287.CrossRefPubMed
38.
King, M. T., Kenny, P., Shiell, A., et al. (2001). Quality of life three months and one year after first treatment for early stage breast cancer: Influence of treatment and patient characteristics. Quality of Life, 20, 789–800.
39.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (2004). Posttraumatic growth: Conceptual foundations and empirical evidence. Psychological Inquiry, 15, 1–18.CrossRef
40.
Tedeschi, R. G., & Calhoun, L. G. (1995). Trauma and transformation: Growing in the aftermath of suffering. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
41.
Cordova, M. J., Cunningham, L. L., Carlson, C. R., et al. (2001). Posttraumatic growth following breast cancer: A controlled comparison study. Health Psychology, 20, 176–185.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Zumbo, B. D., & Hubley, A. M. (1998). A note on misconceptions concerning prospective and retrospective power. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series D: The Statistician, 47, 385–388.CrossRef
43.
Kirk, R. E. (1996). Practical significance: A concept whose time has come. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 746–759.CrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Invariance test of the Multidimensional Body Self-Relations Questionnaire: do women with breast cancer interpret this measure differently?
Auteurs
Catherine M. Sabiston
Shayna Rusticus
Jennifer Brunet
Meghan H. McDonough
Valerie Hadd
Anita M. Hubley
Peter R. E. Crocker
Publicatiedatum
01-10-2010
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 8/2010
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9680-y

Andere artikelen Uitgave 8/2010

Quality of Life Research 8/2010 Naar de uitgave

OriginalPaper

Preliminary findings of an investigation into the relationship between national culture and EQ-5D value sets

OriginalPaper

The impact of next and back buttons on time to complete and measurement reliability in computer-based surveys

OriginalPaper

PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation

Brief Communication

Quality of life of patients with oesophageal cancer in Taiwan: validation and application of the Taiwan Chinese (Mandarin) version of the EORTC QLQ-OES18: a brief communication

OriginalPaper

Quality of life, subjective well-being, and religiosity in Muslim college students

OriginalPaper

Psychometric evaluation of the functional assessment of HIV Infection (FAHI) questionnaire and its usefulness in clinical trials