Document Type : Original Article
Authors
1 International Campus, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
2 Department of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, Research Center of Prevention and Epidemiology of Non-Communicable Disease, School of Public Health, Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran
3 Fertility and Infertility Research Center, Hormozgan University of Medical Sciences, Bandar Abbas, Iran
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Implementing a cervical cancer prevention program requires an exploration of
certain behaviors concerning this disease. This study is aimed to evaluate the psychometrics of a
questionnaire that enquired about the factors involved in Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM)
for cervical cancer among suburban women in Bandar Abbas, south of Iran.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The primary draft of the questionnaire was developed with a review
of the related literature on cervical cancer and the constructs affecting PAPM, with 68 items. The
face validity, content validity ratio (CVR), and content validity index (CVI) of the questionnaire
were approved by a panel of 10 experts. The internal consistency and test‑retest reliability of the
questionnaire were estimated too. Field testing sample included 300 women recruited from a women’s
healthcare center in suburban areas of Bandar Abbas in the south of Iran. Exploratory factor analysis
was used to evaluate validity, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was estimated for reliability.
RESULTS: After the face validation, 11 items were eliminated. Once CVR was estimated, two items
were discarded. The remaining items had a CVR >0.79. All had a CVI >0.79. Six items were eliminated
in the factor analysis. The final questionnaire included 49 items organized in 8 factors including
awareness, perceived susceptibility, perceived severity, perceived benefits, perceived barriers,
social norms, fear, and self‑efficacy. Principal component analysis with varimax rotation indicated
eight main components that explained 56.25% of the variance. Reliability assessment showed a
good internal consistency for all subscales and the Cronbach’s alpha score ranged between 0.82
and 0.90. The test‑retest reliability showed that the correlation coefficients (between 0.81 and 0.89)
were significant at the 0.01 level for all sub‑scales.
CONCLUSIONS: The final questionnaire was a new instrument comprised the effective constructs
of PAPM and had a high reliability and validity. Thus, this questionnaire is recommended to be used
to explore and enhance preventive behaviors of cervical cancer.
Keywords
process model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors.
Health Behavior and Health Education Theory, Research and
Practice. 4th ed. San Francisco: Jossey‑Bass; 2008. p. 123‑47.
2. Barnard M, George P, Perryman ML, Wolff LA. Human
papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine knowledge, attitudes, and uptake
in college students: Implications from the Precaution Adoption
Process Model. PLoS One 2017;12:e0182266.
3. Carter‑Harris L, Davis LL, Rawl SM. Lung cancer screening
participation: Developing a conceptual model to guide research.
Res Theory Nurs Pract 2016;30:333‑52.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Global Cancer
Statistics. Available from: http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/
international/statistics.htm. [Last accessed on 2016 May 13].
5. World Health Organization. Human Papillomavirus (HPV)
and Cervical Cancer. Available from: http://www.who.int/
mediacentre/factsheets/fs380/en/.[Last accessed on 2016 Jun10].
6. Momenimovahed Z, Salehiniya H. Cervical cancer
in Iran: Integrative insights of epidemiological analysis.
Biomedicine (Taipei) 2018;8:18.
7. ICO HPV Information Centre. Iran: Human Papillomavirus and
Related Cancers, Fact Sheet; 2016. Available from: http://www.
hpvcentre.net/statistics/reports/IRN_FS.pdf. [Last accessed on
2016 Feb 04].
8. Marek E, Dergez T, Rebek‑Nagy G, Szilard I, Kiss I, EmberI, et al.
Effect of an educational intervention on Hungarian adolescents’
awareness, beliefs and attitudes on the prevention of cervical
cancer. Vaccine 2012;30:6824‑32.
9. Momeni movahed Z, Salehiniya H. Incidence, mortality and
risk factors of cervical cancer in the world. Biomed Res Ther
2017;4:1795‑811.
10. Giuliano AR, Nyitray AG, Kreimer AR, Pierce Campbell CM,
Goodman MT, Sudenga SL, et al. EUROGIN 2014 roadmap:
Differences in human papillomavirus infection natural history,
transmission and human papillomavirus‑related cancer incidence by gender and anatomic site of infection. Int J Cancer
2015;136:2752‑60.
11. Urban M, Banks E, Egger S, Canfell K, O’Connell D, Beral V, et al.
Injectable and oral contraceptive use and cancers of the breast,
cervix, ovary, and endometrium in black South African women:
Case‑control study. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001182.
12. Su B, Qin W, Xue F, Wei X, Guan Q, Jiang W, et al. The relation of
passive smoking with cervical cancer: A systematic review and
meta‑analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e13061.
13. Betancourt H, Flynn PM, Riggs M, Garberoglio C. A cultural
research approach to instrument development: The case of breast
and cervical cancer screening among Latino and Anglo women.
Health Educ Res 2010;25:991‑1007.
14. Lessa PR, Ribeiro SG, Aquino Pde S, de Almeida PC, Pinheiro AK.
Validation of the Adherence Determinants Questionnaire scale
among women with breast and cervical cancer. Rev Lat Am
Enfermagem 2015;23:971‑8.
15. Ilic I, Babic G, Dimitrijevic A, Ilic M, Grujicic SS. Psychological
distress among women with abnormal pap smear results in
Serbia: Validity and reliability of the Cervical Dysplasia Distress
Questionnaire. PloS one 2019;14:E0218070.
16. Nguyen‑Truong CK, Leo MC, Lee‑Lin F, Gedaly‑Duff V, Nail LM,
Gregg J, et al. Adaptation and testing of instruments to measure
cervical cancer screening factors among Vietnamese immigrant
women. J Transcult Nurs 2015;26:244‑53.
17. Urrutia MT, Hall R. Beliefs about cervical cancer and Pap test:
A new Chilean questionnaire. J Nurs Scholarsh 2013;45:126‑31.
18. Vance ME, Keele B. Development and validation of the
cervical cancer knowledge and beliefs of Appalachian women
questionnaire. J Nurs Meas 2013;21:477‑501.
19. ScreeningPD, BoardPE. Cervical Cancer Screening(PDQ®). InPDQ
Cancer Information Summarie. National Cancer Institute (US);
2019. Available from: https://www.cancer.gov/types/cervical/
patient/cervical‑prevention‑pdq. [Last accessed on 2020 May 13].
20. Ullman JB, Structural Equation Modeling. In: Tabachnick BG,
Fidell LS editors. Using multivariate statistics, 7th ed. California
State University, Northridge: Boston Pearson; 2019. p. 528‑612.
21. Neuendorf KA. The Content Analysis Guidebook, 2th ed. Los
Angeles: Sage; 2017. p. 121‑65.
22. Leedy PD, Ormord JE. Tools of Research, Practical Research:
Planning and Design. 9th ed. Merrill: University of Northern
Colorado (Emerita) University Of New Hampshire; 2010. p. 21‑31.
23. Streiner DL, Norman GR, Cairney J. Health measurement scales:
A practical guide to their development and use. 5th ed. USA:
Oxford University Press; 2015. p. 25‑30.
24. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity.
Personnel psychol1975;28:563‑75.
25. Waltz CF, Bausell B. Nursing Research: Design Statistics and
Computer Analysis 1th ed., Philadelphia: FA Davis. Waltz, CF,
Strickland,: F.A. Davis Co; 1981.p. 39‑81.
26. Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. Content validity index in scale development.
Zhong Nan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban J 2012;37:152‑5
27. Trizano‑Hermosilla I, Alvarado JM. Best alternatives to
Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric
and asymmetrical measurements. Front Psychol 2016;7:769.
28. Kellar SP, Kelvin EA. Munro’s Statistical Methods for Health
Care Research, 6th ed. .Londan.Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott
Williams & Wilkins; 2013.
29. Jaglarz K, Tomaszewski KA, Kamzol W, Puskulluoglu M,
Krzemieniecki K. Creating and field‑testing the questionnaire
for the assessment of knowledge about cervical cancer and its
prevention among schoolgirls and female students. J Gynecol
Oncol 2014;25:81‑9.
30. Jassempour K, Shirazi KK, Fararooei M, Shams M, Shirazi AR.
The impact of educational intervention for providing disaster
survival kit: Applying precaution adoption process model. Int J
Dis Risk Reduct 2014;10:374‑80.
)