ArticleBMC psychology2025
Development and validation of an information-motivation-behavioral skills questionnaire for colorectal cancer prevention in a high-risk population.
Article in BMC psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most prevalent cancers, and the risk of CRC is substantially greater in a high-risk population than in the general population. However, no existing assessment instruments have been specifically designed to evaluate CRC prevention behaviors in a high-risk population. The aim of this study was to develop and psychometrically validate an information-motivation-behavioral skills (IMB) questionnaire tailored for the population at high risk for CRC (IMB-CRC) to assess the factors influencing prevention behaviors.
methodsThis cross-sectional study was conducted in northeastern China. The initial questionnaire items were derived from a comprehensive literature review, semistructured interviews analyzed via content analysis, and expert focus group discussions. Content validity was assessed through expert consultation using the Delphi method, and face validity was evaluated in the high-risk population for CRC. Explanatory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on Sample 1 (N = 287) to identify underlying factors, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed on Sample 2 (N = 224) to validate the model. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were also examined to ensure the stability and consistency of the questionnaire.
resultsThe final IMB-CRC comprises 21 items distributed across four dimensions: prevention information (7 items), objective skills (5 items), self-efficacy (5 items), and motivation (4 items), collectively accounting for 61.99% of the variance. CFA indicated that the proposed model fit the data well (χ2/df = 1.779, RMSEA = 0.059, AGFI = 0.852, GFI = 0.883, CFI = 0.950, IFI = 0.951, TLI = 0.943, and NFI = 0.894). The item content validity index (I-CVI) for individual items ranged from 0.905 to 1, and the scale content validity index (S-CVI) was 0.952, suggesting good content validity. The IMB-CRC demonstrated high reliability, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.937, McDonald's omega of 0.939, and test-retest reliability of 0.919. Significant positive correlations were observed between the IMB-CRC and each of its four dimensions, indicating that higher IMB-CRC scores were associated with greater engagement in cancer prevention behaviors among the high-risk population.
conclusionThe IMB-CRC exhibited appropriate validity and reliability, indicating that this questionnaire is a robust tool for assessing behavioral components essential for CRC prevention in the high-risk population. Health care professionals and policymakers can use the IMB-CRC to develop targeted CRC risk communication and behavioral education strategies, thereby improving the preventive abilities of a high-risk population.
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.