ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2020
Psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire used in a colorectal cancer screening programme-A Rasch analysis.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Making the BEST Decision-the BESTa Project: Description of the Design and Alpha Phases as Part of the Development of a Digital Decision Aid for Cancer Screening in Sweden.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire used in a colorectal cancer screening programme-A Rasch analysis.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancer diagnoses among both sexes. Sweden has not yet implemented any CRC screening programme, but a study, Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO), is ongoing. The movement within the health care sector towards a more participatory perspective has led to the increased importance of shared decision making (SDM), and this is suggestively applied when deciding upon screening participation. There is no Swedish questionnaire for assessing the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening. Therefore, the CRC screening module of the National Survey of Medical Decisions was translated and culturally adapted into a Swedish context: the SCREESCO questionnaire.
aimThe SCREESCO questionnaire requires further evaluation, and therefore, the aim, by using the Rasch approach, was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire.
methodsA Rasch partial credit model was chosen to investigate the psychometric properties. The sample consisted of individuals invited to the SCREESCO programme, who have answered the SCREESCO questionnaire.
resultsRating scale structures indicated stability for the response structure used. Satisfactory evidence for validity of internal structure was also shown for the whole questionnaire and two of three concepts/subscales, after deletion of a few items. Validity in response processes indicated acceptable, or close to acceptable, findings, while the results for unidimensionality and differential item functioning (DIF) were somewhat mixed. Separation index revealed less satisfactory results, both for the whole questionnaire and the concepts/subscales.
conclusionThis Rasch analysis of the SCREESCO questionnaire revealed that the questionnaire in its current form has difficulties to assess the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening. The achieved results will guide further evaluation and development with the long-term goal of having a Swedish questionnaire, to be used in the health care sector, assessing the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.