Skip to main content
Mijn bibliotheek
Shop
Nieuws Boeken Tijdschriften Toetsvragen Web-tv Video Audio
Tips voor Mijn BSL
Inloggen
Top
Quality of Life Research
Gepubliceerd in:

01-06-2009

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

Auteurs: Andrew Cooper, Helen Aucote

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2009

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

vorige artikel Measuring stigma across neurological conditions: the development of the stigma scale for chronic illness (SSCI)
volgende artikel Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF in community-dwelling older people in Taiwan using Rasch analysis
Literatuur
1.
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
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
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.PubMedCrossRef
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.PubMedCrossRef
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
7.
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.
9.
Goldberg, D., & Williams, P. (1988). A user’s guide to the general health questionnaire. London: NFER-Nelson.
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.PubMedCrossRef
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
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.PubMedCrossRef
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
14.
15.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus 4.2. Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
16.
17.
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.
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.CrossRef
20.
21.
22.
23.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guilford Press.
24.
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.CrossRef
26.
27.
28.
Metagegevens
Titel
Measuring the psychological consequences of breast cancer screening: a confirmatory factor analysis of the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire
Auteurs
Andrew Cooper
Helen Aucote
Publicatiedatum
01-06-2009
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2009
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9472-4

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2009

Life events and oral-health-related quality of life among young adults

Measuring stigma across neurological conditions: the development of the stigma scale for chronic illness (SSCI)

The value of adding the Quality of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire to outcome assessments of psychiatric inpatients with mood and affective disorders

Psychometric evaluation of the WHOQOL-BREF in community-dwelling older people in Taiwan using Rasch analysis

The construct validity of the Health Utilities Index Mark 3 in assessing mental health in population health surveys

  • Erratum

Modification, translation and adaptation of questionnaires should copyright laws be observed?