4.2 Article

Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Version of Chemotherapy-induced Peripheral Neuropathy Assessment Tool for Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Taxane Chemotherapy

Journal

ASIA-PACIFIC JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING
Volume 5, Issue 4, Pages 435-441

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.4103/apjon.apjon_29_18

Keywords

Breast cancer; peripheral neuropathy; taxane; validity-reliability

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: The aim was to evaluate the reliability and the validity of the Turkish version of the chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy assessment tool (CIPNAT) in cancer patients using taxane. Methods: This methodological study was carried out to evaluate the validity and the reliability of the CIPNAT. The sample cohort comprised 430 breast cancer patients who were administered taxane, a chemotherapeutic agent, between April and December 2017. Data were collected by the CIPNAT and by a demographic data form. The CIPNAT content reliability was checked after completing it in Turkish. Validity was tested after the translation as well. Cronbach's alpha and test-retest reliability were utilized for reliability analyses. Results: Cronbach's alpha value was 0.87 in this study. The test-retest reliability ranged between 0.90 and 0.96 for all items. No difference existed between the means of test and retest scores of the CIPNAT. A statistically significant positive relationship materialized between the item's test and retest scores. There were statistically significant positive relationships among all levels of the CIPNAT. Factor analysis resulted in a size value higher than 1 and explained 66% of total variation. These results show that the Turkish version of the CIPNAT is a valid and reliable scale in Turkish society. Conclusions: This study showed that the CIPNAT in Turkey is a reliable and valid tool to evaluate taxane chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available