Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30890190›Full record

ArticleBMC psychology2019

Development of the Informed Choice in Mammography Screening Questionnaire (IMQ): factor structure, reliability, and validity.

Maren Reder, Eva-Maria Berens, Jacob Spallek, Petra Kolip

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC psychology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Maren RederBielefeld University, School of Public Health, Department of Prevention and Health Promotion, Universitätsstraße 25, Bielefeld, 33615, Germany. maren.reder@uni-bielefeld.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8842-581X
Eva-Maria BerensBielefeld University, School of Public Health, Department of Health Services Research and Nursing Science, Universitätsstraße 25, Bielefeld, 33615, Germany.
Jacob SpallekBrandenburg University of Technology Cottbus-Senftenberg, Department of Public Health, Universitätsplatz 1, Senftenberg, 01968, Germany.
Petra KolipBielefeld University, School of Public Health, Department of Prevention and Health Promotion, Universitätsstraße 25, Bielefeld, 33615, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformed choice is of ethical and practical importance in mammography screening. To assess the level to which decisions regarding such screening are informed is thus imperative, but no specific instrument has been available to measure informed choice in the German mammography screening programme. The aims of this study were to develop the Informed Choice in Mammography Screening Questionnaire (IMQ) and to find first evidence for the factor structure, reliability and validity of its different components.

methodsThe IMQ was sent to 17.349 women aged 50 in Westphalia-Lippe, Germany. The instrument has been developed after consideration of (1) the results of qualitative interviews on decision making in the mammography screening programme, (2) relevant literature on other informed choice instruments and (3) a qualitative study on influencing factors. The IMQ comprises 3 scales (attitude, norms, and barriers), 1 index (knowledge) and singular items covering intention to participate and sociodemographic variables. To assess the psychometric properties of the components of the IMQ, confirmatory factor and item response theory analyses were conducted. Additionally, reliability, validity and item statistics were assessed.

results5.847 questionnaires were returned (response rate 33.7%). For attitude, the confirmatory factor analysis supported a one-factor structure. For norms, the model fit was not acceptable. Reliability levels were good with a Cronbach's α of.793 for attitude (4 items) and.795 for norms (5 items). For barriers, 9 items were deleted because of low discrimination indices; 6 items remained. The hypothesised assumption-subscale and the importance-subscale were confirmed, but these subscales showed poor reliabilities with Cronbach's α=.525 (4 items) and.583 (2 items). For the knowledge index, item response theory analysis showed that 6 out of 7 items were suitable. Hypotheses concerning the correlations between the different components were confirmed, which supported their convergent and divergent validity.

conclusionThe results of this study demonstrated that the IMQ is a multidimensional instrument. Further development of the barriers and norms scales is necessary. The IMQ can be utilised to assess the level of informed choices as well as influencing factors.

Indexed as

Informed ConsentMammographySurveys and QuestionnairesEarly Detection of CancerFactor Analysis, StatisticalFemaleGermanyHumansMiddle AgedPsychometricsQualitative ResearchReproducibility of ResultsConfirmatory factor analysisInformed choiceMammography screeningReliabilityValidity

Identifiers

PMID30890190
PMCPMC6423759

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.