Spanish Translation and Adaptation of Victoria Champion's Health Belief Model Scales for Breast Cancer Screening-Mammography

Abstract

The Spanish version of the CHBMS can be used by practicing nurses as an instrument to assess health beliefs concerning mammography screening among Spanish-speaking Hispanic women.

Maltese Translation and Adaptation of Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale and the Revised Illness Perception Questionnaire for Breast Screening Among Maltese Women

“…In Champion's original validation study in an American city (Champion, 1999), test-retest scores were 0.62 (susceptibility), 0.61 (benefits) and 0.71 (barriers). Our findings were similarly significant for testretest correlation (0.76, 0.62, 0.67 respectively for Maltese version; 0.75, 0.71, 0.70 respectively for English version), while all five CHBMS-MS subscales in our study show similar psychometric properties to more recent findings (Yilmaz & Sayin, 2014;Medina-Shepherd & Kleier, 2010). A test-retest score ˂0.80 indicates that women did not reply in the same way at the second time point (Yilmaz & Sayin, 2014), which could mean that women did not read the scale items in the same way at both time points.…”

“…However, according to the test-retest results, women answered the scale items similarly in both sessions, indicating that the scale has strong stability over time. Our testretest results were generally higher than those reported in the Medina-Shepherd and Kleier's study (Medina-Shepherd & Kleier, 2010) and Champion's study (Champion, 1999). This difference may be attributed to the small sample in our study.…”

“…In Medina-Shepherd and Kleier's study (Medina-Shepherd & Kleier, 2010), test-retest correlations for control group women (n=20) were perceived susceptibility (Spearman's rho: r=0.57), perceived benefits (r=0.63) and perceived barriers (r=0.83). In Champion's original validation study in an American city (Champion, 1999), test-retest scores were 0.62 (susceptibility), 0.61 (benefits) and 0.71 (barriers).…”

“…Since then, Champion's HBM scale has been tested for reliability and validity around the globe and translated for Iranian (Hashemian, Shokravi, Lamyian, Hassanpour & Akaberi, 2013;Taymoori & Berry, 2009), Lithuanian (Zelviene & Bogusevicius, 2007), Malaysian (Parsa, Kandiah, Mohd Nasir, Hejar & Nor Afiah, 2008), Arabic (Mikhail & Petro-Nustas, 2001), Korean (Lee, Kim & Song, 2002), Chinese-Australian (Kwok, Fethney & White, 2010), Turkish (Norman & Brain, 2005;Lunt, Bowen & Lee, 2005), African-American (Champion et al, 2008), and Spanish-speaking American women (Medina-Shepherd & Kleier, 2010). Findings of these studies have provided support for the validity and reliability of these HBM-based scales, though poor construct validity was shown in a Peruvian-translated version (Champion et al, 2008) and in a Spanish version (Esteva et al, 2007).…”

“…Similarly, Cronbach's alpha coefficient for Champion's subscales were also reported between 0.77 to 0.90 among Chinese American women (Wu & Yu, 2003), and were found to be equal to 0.88 (barriers) and 0.93 (benefits) in a Malaysian study (Parsa, Kandiah, Mohd Nasir, Hejar & Nor Afiah, 2008), 0.89 and 0.73 respectively among African-American women (Champion et al, 2008) but lower (0.63 for benefits) in Medina-Shepherd and Kleier's study (Medina-Shepherd & Kleier, 2010). Among…”