Journals / European Journal of Breast Health / 2021 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2

Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale

Pages
116–122
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

In the internal consistency analyses of the scale,item-total score correlation values ranged from 0.37 to 0.90, and no items were extracted from the scale.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool in determining thescreening beliefs and attitudes of women

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Breast cancer is an important public health problem because of its frequent occurence and fatal consequences.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Early diagnosis of breast cancerincreases the treatment success and survival.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:In the internal consistency analyses of the scale,item-total score correlation values ranged from 0.37 to 0.90, and no items were extracted from the scale.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool in determining thescreening beliefs and attitudes of women
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Breast cancer is an important public health problem because of its frequent occurence and fatal consequences. Early diagnosis of breast cancerincreases the treatment success and survival. For the early diagnosis of breast cancer, women’s screening beliefs and attitudes need to be determined. Thisstudy aimed to examine the reliability and validity of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale to determine patients’ beliefs and attitudes regarding breastcancer screening.Materials and Methods: This methodological study was carried out with 261 women. A survey form and the Turkish version of the Breast CancerScreening Beliefs Scale were used in the data collection. Coverage validity was determined by the coverage validity index, and the Davis technique, item-totalscore correlations, Cronbach alpha evaluation, factor analysis, and AMOS analysis were used.Results: The factor structure of the 13-item Turkish version of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale was examined. After the factor analysis, a threefactor structure emerged which accounted for 70% of the total variance and has an eigenvalue of over 1.00. In the internal consistency analyses of the scale,item-total score correlation values ranged from 0.37 to 0.90, and no items were extracted from the scale.Conclusion: The Turkish version of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale was found to be a valid and reliable measurement tool in determining thescreening beliefs and attitudes of women

🔖

Cite This Article

ÇELİK, A. S., TÜRKOĞLU, N. (2022). Validity and Reliability of the Turkish Version of the Breast Cancer Screening Beliefs Scale. European Journal of Breast Health, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 2, 116–122. https://ajindex.com/articles/510711

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (1)

  1. Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer 2010; 15;127: 2893-2917. (PMID: 21351269) [CrossRef] 2. Ulusu S, Özgül N, Yılmaz İ, Şalk İ, Kelkit Ş, Gültekin M, et al. Screening of society based breast cancer ın Turkey program: fırst assessment report. [Article in Turkish]. J Turk Gynecol Oncol 2007; 10: 85-90. [CrossRef] 3. Eser S, Yakut C, Özdemir R, Karakılıç H, Özalan S, Marshall SF, et al. Cancer incidence rates in Turkey in 2006: a detailed registry based estimation. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2010; 11: 1731-1739. (PMID: 21338224) [CrossRef] 4. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Latest world cancer statistics Global cancer burden rises to 14.1 million new cases in 2012: marked increase in breast cancers must be addressed. (Last Accessed Date: 07.10.2017). Available from: http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/ pr/2013/pdfs/pr223_E.pdf [CrossRef] 5. Ministry of Health, National Cancer Screening Program, 2018, Available from: http://www.erzurum.saglik.gov.tr/TR,82316/meme-kanseri.html [CrossRef] 6. Ministry of Health, Cancer Statistics; 2018, Available from: https://www. saglik.gov.tr/Eklenti/8635,kanseristatistikleridocx.docx?0 [CrossRef] 7. Sousa VD, Rojjanasrirat W. Translation, adaptation and validation of instruments or scales for use in cross-cultural health care research: A clear and user-friendly guideline. J Eval Clin Pract 2011; 17: 268-274. (PMID: 20874835) [CrossRef] 8. Erkuş A. Psychological measurement and scale development-I basic concepts and ocedures. 2nd ed. Ankara: Pegem Publishing; 2014 [CrossRef] 9. Güngör D. Psychological measuring instruments development and customization guide. Turkish Psychology Articles 2016; 19;104-112. [CrossRef] 10. Kwok C, Fethney J, White K. Chinese breast cancer screening beliefs questionnaire: development and psychometric testing with ChineseAustralian women. J Adv Nurs 2010; 66; 191-200. (PMID: 20423444) [CrossRef] 11. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments. (Last Accessed: March 2017) Available from: http://www. who.int/substance_abuse/research_tools/translation/en/ [CrossRef] 12. Berberoğlu G. Scope validation. Cito education: Theor Pract 2012; 15:10-16. [CrossRef] 13. Şeker H, Gençdoğan B. Development of psychology and measurement tool in education. 2nd ed. İstanbul: Nobel Publishing; 2014. [CrossRef] 14. Kula Kartal S, Dirlik EM. Historical development of the conce