Validation study reveals strong reliability for a psychological expectations scale in advanced cervical cancer, indicating its clinical utility.
Objective The Psychological Expectation Scale for Patients with Middle‐ and Late‐Stage Cervical Cancer (PES‐PMLSCC) was developed to assess the psychological expectations of patients with middle and late cervical cancer, and its reliability, validity, and acceptability were tested. Method Employing classical test theory methodology, a cohort of 148 cervical cancer patients classified as FIGO Stage III or IV (or equivalent TNM staging) was enrolled in this study. The PES‐PMLSCC scale was developed. The initial iteration of the PES‐PMLSCC was refined through item analysis. To assess the structural validity of the final scale, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted, followed by preliminary internal validation using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modeling (SEM). The criterion‐related validity (CRV) of the final PES‐PMLSCC version was evaluated by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient between the PES‐PMLSCC and the QLQ‐C30. Results The PES‐PMLSCC scale comprises 14 items distributed across four subscales: physiological needs (three items), safety needs (four items), social needs (two items), and self‐actualization (five items). Preliminary evidence of reliability, as indicated by a Cronbach's alpha of 0.819, a Spearman‐Brown coefficient of 0.912, and a test–retest reliability coefficient of 0.928. The preliminary internal validation of the validity showed that χ 2 /df = 1.39, GFI = 0.93, CFI = 0.98, NFI = 0.93, IFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.05, and the I‐CVIs exceeded 0.80. Conclusions The findings indicate that the PES‐PMLSCC is applicable for assessing the level of psychological expectations among patients with middle‐ and late‐stage cervical cancer in China, particularly in the southwestern region.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: