Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 1263–1270 | Cite as

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer Scale (RCAC) for young female cancer survivors

  • Ting-ting Qiao
  • Wei ZhengEmail author
  • Wei Xing
  • Li-xia Zhang
  • Wei Zhang
  • Yan-ping Shi
  • Xiao-juan Chen
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

This study aimed to translate, culturally adapt, and test the psychometric properties of the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer scale (RCAC) in young Chinese female cancer survivors.

Methods

The Chinese version of the RCAC was developed using the standard Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) translation methodology, and then 800 young Chinese female cancer survivors were recruited to complete the scale. The validation of the RCAC is as follows: (1) content validity was evaluated by a group of experts; (2) factor structure was assessed using confirmatory factor analysis and factorial invariance analysis; (3) convergent validity was determined by correlations with the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale; (4) internal consistency reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s α coefficient; and (5) test-retest reliability was assessed using intra-class correlations.

Results

Internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranged from 0.71 to 0.81) and test-retest reliability (intra-class correlation coefficients ranged from 0.82 to 0.95) of the Chinese version of the RCAC were satisfactory. Results also indicated that the content validity index of the RCAC (Chinese version) was good. The Chinese version of the RCAC score was correlated with the PHQ-9 (r = 0.568, p < 0.01) and FACT-G (r = −0.524, p < 0.01) scores, which indicated acceptable convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a six-factor structure of the Chinese version of the RCAC with a good model fit. Moreover, multi-group confirmatory factor analysis indicated factorial invariance (configural, metric, scalar, and strict invariance) of the RCAC across cancer types.

Conclusions

The translation and cross-cultural adaption of the RCAC into Chinese was successful. The Chinese version of the RCAC has suitable factor structure and psychometric properties for reproductive concerns evaluation in young female cancer patients and is appropriate to use in clinical trials of Chinese patients.

Keywords

Cancer Psychometric properties Reproductive concerns Scale 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the original author of the Reproductive Concerns After Cancer scale, Prof. Jessica R. Gorman, for authorizing us to use of the scale, thus making our study possible. We also thank all the patients who accepted to take part in the study.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

All participants signed informed consent form at study onset, according to the recommendations of the Research Ethics Committee at Zhengzhou University.

References

  1. 1.
    World Health Organization (2015). World cancer report 2014. Geneva. http://www.iarc.fr/en/ publications/books/wcr/ wcr- order. php. Accessed 10 May 2016
  2. 2.
    Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A (2015) Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 65:87–108. doi: 10.3322/caac.21262 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A (2016) Cancer statistics, 2016. CA Cancer J Clin 66:7–30. doi: 10.3322/caac.21332 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Linkeviciute A, Boniolo G, Chiavari L, Peccatori FA (2014) Fertility preservation in cancer patients: the global framework. Cancer Treat Rev 40:1019–1027. doi: 10.1016/j.ctrv.2014.06.001 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Armuand GM, Rodriguez-Wallberg KA, Wettergren L, Ahlgren J, Enblad G, Höglund M, Lampic C (2012) Sex differences in fertility-related information received by young adult cancer survivors. J Clin Oncol 30:2147–2153. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.6470 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Seifer DB, Minkoff H, Merhi Z (2015) Putting ‘family’ back in family planning. Hum Reprod 30:16–19. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu304 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wang L, Xu X, Baker P, Tong C, Zhang L, Qi H, Zhao Y (2016) Patterns and associated factors of caesarean delivery intention among expectant mothers in China: implications from the implementation of China’s new national two-child policy. Int J Environ Res Public Health 13:E686. doi: 10.3390/ijerph13070686 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Loi K, Lau M, Loh SF, Tan YY, Hong GS, Chan MY, Tan AM (2010) Attitudes toward fertility preservation in female cancer patients. J Reprod Med 55:411–416PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Howard-Anderson J, Ganz PA, Bower JE, Stanton AL (2012) Quality of life, fertility concerns, and behavioral health outcomes in younger breast cancer survivors: a systematic review. J Natl Cancer Inst 104:386–405. doi: 10.1093/jnci/djr541 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Partridge AH, Gelber S, Peppercorn J, Sampson E, Knudsen K, Laufer M, Rosenberg R, Przypyszny M, Rein A, Winer EP (2004) Web-based survey of fertility issues in young women with breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 22:4174–4183. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.01.159 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mersereau JE, Goodman LR, Deal AM, Gorman JR, Whitcomb BW, Su HI (2013) To preserve or not to preserve: how difficult is the decision about fertility preservation? Cancer 119:4044–4050. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28317 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gorman JR, Bailey S, Pierce JP, Su HI (2012) How do you feel about fertility and parenthood? The voices of young female cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 6:200–209. doi: 10.1007/s117 64-011-0211-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Quinn GP, Knapp C, Murphy D, Sawczyn K, Sender L (2012) Congruence of reproductive concerns among adolescents with cancer and parents: pilot testing an adapted instrument. Pediatrics 129:e930–e936. doi: 10.1542/peds.2011-2568 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Letourneau JM, Ebbel EE, Katz PP, Katz A, Ai WZ, Chien AJ, Melisko ME, Cedars MI, Rosen MP (2012) Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer. Cancer 118:1710–1717. doi: 10.1002/cncr.26459 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hohmann C, Borgmann-Staudt A, Rendtorff R, Reinmuth S, Holzhausen S, Willich SN, Henze G, Goldbeck L, Keil T (2011) Patient counselling on the risk of infertility and its impact on childhood cancer survivors: results from a national survey. J Psychosoc Oncol 29:274–285. doi: 10.1080/07347332.2011.563344 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fu B, Qin N, Cheng L, Tang G, Cao Y, Yan C, Huang X, Yan P, Zhu S, Lei J (2015) Development and validation of an infertility stigma scale for Chinese women. J Psychosom Res 79:69–75. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2014.11.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wenzel L, Dogan-Ates A, Habbal R, Berkowitz R, Goldstein DP, BernsteinM KBC, Osann K, Newlands E, Seckl MJ, Hancock B, Cella D (2005) Defining and measuring reproductive concerns of female cancer survivors. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 34:94–98. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgi017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Klonoff-Cohen H, Natarajan L, Klonoff E (2007) Validation of a new scale for measuring concerns of women undergoing assisted reproductive (CART). J Health Psychol 12:352–356. doi: 10.1177/1359105307074282 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gorman JR, Su HI, Pierce JP, Roberts SC, Dominick SA, Malcarne VL (2014) A multidimensional scale to measure the reproductive concerns of young adult female cancer survivors. J Cancer Surviv 8:218–228. doi: 10.1007/s11764-013-0333-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gorman JR, Su HI, Roberts SC, Dominick SA, Malcarne VL (2015) Experiencing reproductive concerns as a female cancer survivor is associated with depression. Cancer 121:935–942. doi: 10.1002/cncr.29133 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kim J, Mersereau JE, Su HI, Whitcomb BW, Malcarne VL, Gorman JR (2016) Young female cancer survivors’ use of fertility care after completing cancer treatment. Support Care Cancer 24:3191–3199. doi: 10.1007/s00520-016-3138-x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB (2001) The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 16:606–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang W, Bian Q, Zhao Y, Li X, Wang W, Du J, Zhang G, Zhou Q, Zhao M (2014) Reliability and validity of the Chinese version of the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) in the general population. Gen Hosp Psychiatry 36:539–544. doi: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2014.05.021 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chen S, Chiu H, Xu B, Ma Y, Jin T, Wu M, Conwell Y (2010) Reliability and validity of the PHQ-9 for screening late-life depression in Chinese primary care. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry 25:1127–1133. doi: 10.1002/gps.2442 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Liu ZW, Yu Y, Hu M, Liu HM, Zhou L, Xiao SY (2016) PHQ-9 and PHQ-2 for screening depression in Chinese rural elderly. PLoS One 11:e0151042. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pone.0151042 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lent L, Hahn E, Eremenco S, Webster K, Cella D (1999) Using cross-cultural input to adapt the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) scales. Acta Oncol 38:695–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Webster K, Cella D, Yost K (2003) The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measurement system: properties, applications, and interpretation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 1:79. doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-1-79 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cheung YB, Goh C, Wee J, Khoo KS, Thumboo J (2009) Measurement properties of the Chinese language version of the functional assessment of cancer therapy-general in a Singaporean population. Ann Acad Med Singap 38:225–229PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Eremenco SL, Cella D, Arnold BJ (2005) A comprehensive method for the translation and cross-cultural validation of health status questionnaires. Eval Health Prof 28:212–232. doi: 10.1177/0163278705275342 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Terwee CB, Bot SD, de Boer MR, van der Windt DA, Knol DL, Dekker J, Bouter LM, deVet HC (2007) Quality criteria were proposed for measurement properties of health status questionnaires. J Clin Epidemiol 60:34–42. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2006.03.012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lynn MR (1986) Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 35:382–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bentler PM (1990) Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull 107:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Ximénez C, Revuelta J (2010) Factorial invariance in a repeated measures design: an application to the study of person-organization fit. Span J Psychol 13:485–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Meredith W, Teresi JA (2006) An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care 44:569–577. doi: 10.1097/01.mlr.0000245438.73837.89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Schmitt N, Golubovich J, Leong FT (2011) Impact of measurement invariance on construct correlations, mean differences, and relations with external correlates: an illustrative example using Big Five and RIASEC measures. Assessment 18:412–427. doi: 10.1177/1073191110373223 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yekaninejad MS, Pakpour AH, Tadakamadla J, Kumar S, Mosavi SH, Fridlund B, Bottomley A, Aaronson NK (2015) Oral-health-related quality of life in patients with cancer: cultural adaptation and the psychometric testing of the Persian version of EORTC QLQ-OH17. Support Care Cancer 23:1215–1224. doi: 10.1007/s00520-014-2468-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gorman JR, Malcarne VL, Roesch SC, Madlensky L, Pierce JP (2010) Depressive symptoms among young breast cancer survivors: the importance of reproductive concerns. Breast Cancer Res Treat 123:477–485. doi: 10.1007/s 10549-010- 0768-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ting-ting Qiao
    • 1
  • Wei Zheng
    • 1
    Email author
  • Wei Xing
    • 1
  • Li-xia Zhang
    • 1
  • Wei Zhang
    • 1
  • Yan-ping Shi
    • 1
  • Xiao-juan Chen
    • 1
  1. 1.The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou UniversityZhengzhouChina

Personalised recommendations