An examination of the 3‐factor model and structural invariance across racial/ethnic groups for the FACIT‐Sp: a report from the American Cancer Society's Study of Cancer Survivors‐II (SCS‐II)

Abstract

The 3-factor model is likely to provide more specific information for studies in the field. In the construction of scales for use with diverse samples, researchers need to pay greater attention to racial/ethnic differences in interpretation of items.

Assessment of spiritual suffering in the cancer context: A systematic literature review

“…Some 20 scales were identified that measured meaning: the Chinese Cancer Coherence Scale (CCCS) (Chan et al, 2007); the Constructed Meaning Scale (Fife, 1995); the meaning/peace subscale of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Spiritual Well-Being Scale (FACIT-Sp) (Canada et al, 2008;Murphy et al, 2010;Peterman et al, 2002); the Illness Cognitions Questionnaire (ICQ) (Evers et al, 2001); the Internal Coherence Scale (ICS) (Kroz et al, 2009); the Life Attitude Profile (LAP)/ Life Attitude Profile -Revised (LAP -R) (Reker, 1992;Reker & Peacock, 1981); the Life Evaluation Questionnaire (LEQ) (Salmon et al, 1996); the Meaning in Life questions (including the Benefit Finding Scale [BFS]) used by Tomich and Helgeson (2002); the Meaning in Life Questionnaire (MLQ) (Steger et al, 2006); the Meaning in Life Scale (MILS) (Jim et al, 2006); the Meaning in Suffering Test (MIST) (Starck, 1983); the Perceived Meanings of Cancer Pain Inventory (PMCPI) (Chen, 1999); the Personal Meaning Profile (PMP) (Wong, 1998); the Positive Meaning and Vulnerability Scale (Bower et al, 2005); the Purpose in Life (PIL) Test (Crumbaugh & Maholick, 1964); the Purposelessness, Understimulation, and Boredom (PUB) Scale (Passik et al, 2003); the Schedule for Meaning in Life Evaluation (SMiLE) (Fegg et al, 2008); the Sense of Coherence (SOC) Scale (Antonovsky, 1993); the Sources of Meaning Profile (SOMP)/Sources of Meaning Profile -Revised (SOMP -R) (Reker, 1996); and the World Assumptions Scale (Janoff-Bulman, 1989). The optimal measure of meaning will vary depending on the purpose and context of the assessment.…”

A Systematic Review of Associations between Spiritual Well-Being and Quality of Life at the Scale and Factor Levels in Studies among Patients with Cancer

“…41 This positive association was consistent for overall QOL (ranges from 0.49 to 0.70) and for physical (ranges from 0.25 to 0.28) and mental health (ranges from 0.55 to 0.73). 10,20,24,26 The correlation between Meaning/ Peace and mental health was found to be stronger than physical health in three studies, 11,29,45 although not for 288 BAI AND LAZENBY 2. FACIT-Sp-12 and two subscales remained independent predictors of total FACT-G controlling for demographic and clinical characteristics.…”

“…[24][25][26][27][28] Sample size ranged from 44 18 to 8805. 29 Thirteen studies conducted in the United States had a significant proportion of subjects that belong to racial, ethnic, or religious minorities. 10,14,15,[20][21][22][23][24][25][30][31][32][33] Eight studies targeted breast, 19,32,34,35 prostate, 30,31 or colorectal cancer patients 15 only.…”

“…30,31 The positive association remained significant after controlling for demographic and clinical variables 15,30,42,45 and the Faith factor. 11,15,29,35,37 Meaning and Peace as two factors. Seven studies divided the Meaning/Peace factor into two separate factors, Meaning and Peace, when examining associations between SpWB and QOL.…”

“…10 More recent studies, however, support a three-factor model that splits Meaning and Peace into separate factors. 11,22,25,29,37 Other instruments used were the Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS), 7 a single-item linear analog scale assessment of overall spiritual well-being, 16 the geriatric spiritual well-being scale JAREL, 38 the existential well-being subscale of the McGill Quality of Life Questionnaire (MQOL), 39 and the Personal Meaning Index subscale of the Reker's Life Attitude Profile-Revised (LAP-R PMI). 40 QOL outcomes were reported as overall QOL (total score or one-item global measure), summated scores of physical health (physical component summary [PCS]) or mental health (mental component summary [MCS]), or were broken down to domains of physical, social, emotional, and functional wellbeing.…”