Cancer Screening Belief Scale. Discussion
Reliabilities of the final version of the CSBS-C
The internal consistencies of the 17-item three-factor scale in the final item pool were then calculated again. Again, data showed satisfactory reliabilities, with Cronbach alpha ranged from .72 to .90.
Discussion
Current data showed that psychometric properties of the CSBS-C demonstrated satisfactory reliability and validity. The test-retest reliabilities assessed by structural equation modeling suggested the scores of the three-factor scale were stable over time. The structure of the CSBS-C measurement examined by confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated reasonable model fits indicating satisfactory construct validity. In addition, the scores of the final 17-item three-factor scale revealed good internal consistencies to assess cancer screening beliefs in general. These convergence evidence from current data demonstrated that the structure of the CSBS-C scale was consistent to the theoretical constructs with satisfactory reliabilities and validities. Furthermore, current results supported evidence-based psychometric properties of the scale to measure cancer screening beliefs among a Chinese worksite middle-aged population including both males and females.
The descriptive results of the current study showed that participants on average scored high on perceived screening benefit, moderate on barriers towards cancer screenings, and moderate on perceived risk of cancers. The findings indicated that, in general, participants in the study might believe cancer screenings were beneficial and themselves being at similar risk of getting cancers compared with other people their age, yet at the same time also perceive moderate barriers towards various cancer screenings. How middle-aged adults weight the benefits and concerns of cancer screenings and potential consequences of finding out having cancers, and how health care providers could address the various screening barriers to encourage screening non-adherent adults to obtain regular cancer screenings might warrant further research and discussions.
One thing to note is that the CSBS-C scale was developed and tested among middle-age, relatively highly educated Chinese participants. Therefore, generalization of the study results needs to consider these factors. Nevertheless, this instrument serves as an important tool developed specifically for Chinese population measuring general cancer screening related beliefs.
In summary, current study indicated that the CSBS-C is reliable and valid for assessing beliefs towards cancer screenings in general among Chinese population. The scores of the CSBS-C demonstrated both good reliabilities and appropriate validities consisted with existing social and behavioral theoretical constructs (perceived pros, cons, and susceptibility). It provides a multidimensional measurement to assess general cancer screening related beliefs. The brief inventory (17 items) makes it practical for future adoptions. Current findings also shed light on issues related to screening related barriers (concerns of finding out having cancers, the mentality of rather not knowing having cancers, etc.). Public health programs that aim to encourage screenings should consider these potential mental barriers associated with cancer screening. On the other hand, health promotion and preventive programs might take advantage of the relatively high perceived benefits of cancer screening to install values of early detection. Specifically, for Chinese population, emphasizing values of family such as “screening for family” might worth more attention. Information obtained from the CSBS-C can help researchers establish evidence-based priorities for encouraging cancer screenings. The CSBS-C with the proven psychometric properties has implication on future application to the development and evaluation of cancer prevention programs delivered to Chinese population.