4.3 Article

Measurement Invariance of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale's Three-Factor Structure in Men and Women With Cancer

期刊

REHABILITATION PSYCHOLOGY
卷 56, 期 1, 页码 58-66

出版社

EDUCATIONAL PUBLISHING FOUNDATION-AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0022490

关键词

cancer; illness intrusiveness; gender; psychometric evaluation; confirmatory factor analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Illness- and treatment-related disruptions to valued activities and interests (illness intrusiveness) are central to quality of life in chronic disease and are captured by three subscales of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale (IIRS): the Instrumental, Intimacy, and Relationships and Personal Development subscales. Using individual (CFA) and multisample confirmatory factor analyses (MSCFA), we evaluated measurement invariance of the IIRS's 3-factor structure in men and women with cancer. Method: Men (n = 210) and women (n = 206) with 1 of 4 cancer diagnoses (gastrointestinal, head and neck, lymphoma, lung) recruited from outpatient clinics completed the IIRS. In the MSCFA, we applied an analysis of means and covariance structures approach to test increasingly stringent equality constraints on factor structure parameters to evaluate weak, strong, and strict measurement invariance of the 3-factor structure between men and women. Results: Individual CFAs demonstrated fit of the hypothesized 3-factor structure for men and women, although more consistently for men. The 3-factor structure was superior to an alternative I-factor structure. MSCFA results indicated that parameters of the 3-factor structure could be considered equivalent between the sexes up to the level of strong invariance. Strict invariance was not supported. Conclusions: Overall. IIRS scores can be interpreted similarly for men and women with cancer. Illness intrusiveness can be considered as important in the psychosocial adaptation of people with cancer as it is for people affected by other chronic conditions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据