IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v50y2000i11p1655-1663.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measurement of community beliefs about colorectal cancer

Author

Listed:
  • Stanton, Warren R.
  • Balanda, Kevin P.
  • Gillespie, Amaya M.
  • Lowe, John B.
  • Baade, Peter D.

Abstract

Few educational campaigns have focused on bowel cancer, though studies have indicated that members of the community need and want current information about relevant issues. In order to facilitate research in this area, reliable and valid measures of community attitudes are needed. Content validity of a survey instrument was obtained through use of a Delphi process with Directors of Education from the Australia Cancer Council and focus group discussions with informed members of the public. The subsequent survey of community perceptions about colorectal cancer included a broad range of content areas related to the risk of bowel cancer, preventing and coping with bowel cancer and beliefs about susceptibility and severity. The construct validity of these content areas was investigated by use of a factor analysis and confirmation of an association with related predictor variables. Two measures related to personal influence and anticipated coping responses showed favourable psychometric properties, including moderate to high levels of internal consistency and test-retest reliability. A test of the concurrent validity of these measures requires further development of instruments related to colorectal cancer or adaptation of measures from other areas of health research.

Suggested Citation

  • Stanton, Warren R. & Balanda, Kevin P. & Gillespie, Amaya M. & Lowe, John B. & Baade, Peter D., 2000. "Measurement of community beliefs about colorectal cancer," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(11), pages 1655-1663, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:11:p:1655-1663
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277-9536(99)00395-0
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:50:y:2000:i:11:p:1655-1663. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.