ArticleInternational journal of psychological research
Comparison of psychometric methods for examining the factor structure of the Supportive Care Needs Survey- Short Form (SCNS-SF34) in Colombian cancer patients.
Article in International journal of psychological research. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: to ensure optimal oncology care a structured assessment of different needs is highly desirable. The Supportive Care Needs Survey in its short form (SCNS-SF34) is frequently used to such objective. The survey has been validated in several contexts; accordingly, some reports suggest alternative structures. However, there are differences in validation outcomes attributable to study heterogeneity. Thus, we aimed to test the factor structure of the SCNS-SF34 comparing different psychometric methods. Methods: an instrumental study was conducted in Bogotá-Colombia. A sample of 200 adult patients diagnosed and already treated for any type of cancer was estimated. Patients were randomly selected at a referral center; data was collected by trained personnel. To test the factor invariance, we used a parallel analysis for the exploratory factor analysis (EFA), the exploratory structural equation modelling (ESEM), and the exploratory graph analysis (EGA). Results: overall, 245 patients were recruited; 64.0% women; 83.7% lived in urban areas; 34.7% had elementary education, and all were affiliated to a health insurance company in the Colombian health system. The parallel analysis yielded 5 factors explaining 55% of variance with low goodness of fit (CFI = 0.687, TLI = 0.602, RMSEA = 0.139, SRMR = 0.040). The ESEM adjusted for 5 factors with good fit (CFI = 0.971, TLI = 0.960, RMSEA = 0.023, SRMR = 0.04), however, some items presented a Heywood effect and loaded to different domains. The EGA showed 5 node communities, but some patient care and support items were found integrated within the health systems-and-information domain. The theoretical domains showed adequate reliability. Conclusions: the 5 domains of the SCNS-SF34 showed structural validity for its application in Colombia. Further analysis in other Spanish-speaking Latin American countries are anticipated but our results suggest that ESEM and EGA approaches may be better to understand the structure of the survey.
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.