PMCCPMCCPMCC

Search tips
Search criteria 

Advanced


 
Formats
Article sections
Authors
Related links
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
 
Cancer. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 February 15.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC3017733
NIHMSID: NIHMS214308
Copyright notice and Disclaimer
Structural and Reliability Analysis of a Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-Related Care Measure: A Multi-Site Patient Navigation Research Program Study
Pascal Jean-Pierre, PhD, MPH,1 Kevin Fiscella, MD, MPH,2 Karen M Freund, MD MPH,3 Jack Clark, PhD,4 Julie Darnell, PhD, MHSA,5 Alan Holden, PhD,6 Doug Post, PhD,7 Steven R Patierno, PhD,8 Paul C. Winters, MS,2 and Patient Navigation Research Program Group9
1University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, MA
2University of Rochester Medical Center, MA
3Boston University School of Medicine, MA
4Edith Norse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital Bedford, MA
5University of Illinois, Chicago School of Public Health, San Antonio
6University of Texas, Health Science Center, San Antonio
7The Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center, Washington, DC
8George Washington University, Cancer Institute, Washington, DC
9The Patient Navigation Research Group (Fred Snyder, PhD, NOVA Research; Emmanuel Taylor, PhD, Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, National Cancer Institute; Richard G. Roetzheim, MD, MSPH, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research Institute; Victoria Warren-Mears, PhD, RD, LD, Northwest Tribal Epidemiology Center; Desiree Rivers, PhD, MSPH; University of South Florida, H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center; Nancy LaVerda, MPH; George Washington University, Cancer Institute, Washington, DC).
Send Correspondence Requests to: Pascal Jean-Pierre, PhD, MPH Assistant Professor of Pediatrics University of Miami Miller School of Medicine Department of Pediatrics and Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center P. O. Box 016820 (D-820) Miami, Florida 33101 ; PJean-Pierre/at/med.miami.edu
Small right arrow pointing to: The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at Cancer
Small right arrow pointing to: See other articles in PMC that cite the published article.
Abstract
Background
Patient satisfaction (PS) is an important outcome measure of quality of cancer care and one of the four core study outcomes of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) sponsored Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) to reduce race/ethnicity-based disparities in cancer care. There is no existing PS measure that spans the spectrum of cancer-related care.
Objective
Develop a Patient Satisfaction with Cancer Care (PSCC) measure that is relevant to patients receiving diagnostic/therapeutic cancer-related care.
Methods
We developed a conceptual framework, an operational definition of PSCC, and an item pool based on literature review, expert feedback, group discussion and consensus. The 35-item PSCC measure was administered to 891 participants from the multi-site NCI-sponsored PNRP. Principal components analysis (PCA) was conducted for latent structure analysis. Internal consistency was assessed using Cronbach coefficient alpha (α). Divergent analysis was performed using correlation analyses between the PSCC, the Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy (CASE-Cancer), and demographic variables.
Results
The PCA revealed a one-dimensional measure with items forming a coherent set explaining 62% of the variance in PS. Reliability assessment revealed high internal consistency (α ranging from 0.95 to 0.96). The PSCC demonstrated good face validity, convergent validity and divergent validity as indicated by moderate correlations with subscales of the CASE-Cancer (all ps < 0.01) and non-significant correlations with age, primary language, marital status, and scores on the Rapid Estimate of Adult Literacy in Medicine (REALM) Long Form (all ps > 0.05).
Conclusion
The PSCC is a valid tool for assessing satisfaction for cancer-related care for this sample.
Patient satisfaction reflects a core dimension of health care quality and patient-centered care.1-3 Patient satisfaction indicates the extent to which patients’ health care experiences match their expectations.4,5 The construct of patient satisfaction has been linked to health status, quality of life, adherence to recommended treatment and medical advice including cancer treatment, initiation of complaints, and patient-healthcare provider communication in the clinical dyad.6-16 Patient satisfaction with care represents an important outcome measure for health care in general and cancer care, in particular.17
Patient satisfaction is one of the primary study outcomes of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) supported Patient Navigation Research Program (PNRP) to reduce disparities in cancer care for individuals from racial/ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic groups. The PRNP involves nine independent research programs operating under cooperative agreements with the NCI Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities to evaluate the impact of patient navigation on outcomes among patients with cancer screening abnormalities or diagnosed cancer.18
While there are numerous patient satisfaction measures, including a number of measures related to cancer treatment, none of these measures span the spectrum of cancer-related care from screening to treatment of diagnosed cancer.19-25 For example, the widely used EORTC-INPATSAT32 is designed to assess satisfaction with the inpatient cancer care while the FAMCARE assesses satisfaction among those with advanced cancer.20, 24
In the present study, we aimed to develop a Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-related Care measure that had: a) sufficient breadth (i.e., addressing satisfaction with care during evaluation of screening abnormalities and treatment), b) addressed many of the challenges confronted by poor and minority individuals receiving cancer-related care, and c) was relevant for evaluation of care among both navigated and un-navigated patients.
Development of the Patient Satisfaction with Cancer-related Care (PSCC)
The scale development team included investigators from different PNRP sites with content and technical expertise in clinical care of patients from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds, as well as measurement development and psychometrics. The team reviewed existing patient satisfaction measures, considered various domains of satisfaction (access/logistical, interpersonal/relational, communicational/informational, and coordination of care), selected and modified existing items for inclusion in the new PSCC scale. One additional item was administered only to participants with a confirmed diagnosis of cancer: “My treatment was explained in a way I could understand”.
Response Options and Scoring
Patients responded to each scale item on a 5-point Likert scale (“1 = Strongly Agree” to “5 = Strongly Disagree). A total scale score was obtained by adding scores on all items, with lower scores indicating higher satisfaction with cancer care.
Participants
The PNRP methods have been previously published.18 Briefly, the PNRP is cooperative program funded by NCI and the ACS to rigorously evaluate the role and benefits of patient navigation among participants with abnormal cancer screening findings or diagnosed cancer - breast, cervical, colorectal or prostate cancer – within nine largely racial/ethnic minorities and low-income communities across the country. Study design and type of cancer differ by participating site.
The satisfaction items were administered to a subsample of the 8075 participants in the PNRP. In all, 891 English fluent participants from the multi-site NCI-sponsored PNRP who completed the PSCC measure. Survey participants were similar in age, but more likely to be female, minority, lower income and less educated.
Procedures
Medical staff at the PNRP recruiting sites (e.g., clinics or hospitals) was informed about the study and referred eligible patients to speak with a trained research assistant (RA) or patient navigator about participating in the study. To minimize possible effects of low literacy, surveys were read out loud to participants in English.
Eligibility and Exclusion Criteria
Eligibility for the present study included having an abnormal breast, cervical, colorectal and prostate cancer cancer test finding or a new diagnosis of these cancers without any prior history of cancer treatment other than non-melanoma skin cancer.18
Additional Measures
Demographic characteristics
These included age, sex, race, ethnicity, primary language, income, education, marital status, and whether the patient received care related to evaluation of cancer screening abnormalities or treatment of cancer, and type of cancer being evaluated or treated (breast, cervical, colorectal or prostate).
Communication and Attitudinal Self-Efficacy (CASE-Cancer)
The CASE-Cancer is a psychometrically validated multi-dimensional measure (i.e., Understanding and participating in care, maintaining a positive attitude, seeking and obtaining information) of communication and attitude. Structural analysis of the CASE-Cancer revealed high internal consistency and construct validity.26 Given overlap in constructs, we expected that the PSCC would correlate with the CASE-Cancer.
Data Analysis
Dimensionality analysis of the PSCC
Latent structural and psychometric validation analyses were conducted using SPSS version 17.0 statistical software package for Microsoft Windows. Data from our multi-site sample were randomly divided into two separate datasets (Sample 1, N1 = 453; Sample 2, N2 = 438) using SPSS. One dataset was used to test the latent structure of the PSCC and the second dataset was used to validate the said structure. We had a very large sample that facilitated calculation of reliable correlation coefficients for the PSCC. This approach is in accordance with guides on sample sizes for factor analysis/principal components analysis.27-28 Additionally, the PCA solutions include many high variables markers and therefore could have facilitated stable and reliable estimates of correlation coefficients with even a smaller sample size.29 Prior to conducting the principal components analysis (PCA), suitability of the data for dimensionality analysis was assessed using various criteria (e.g., examination of the correlation matrix for correlations of .30 and above). The PCA was conducted to reduce the data to a few components that could be more easily described. We performed an initial PCA, using Sample 1 data, without rotation to facilitate extraction and examination of meaningful components, based on eigenvalues and screeplot criteria, that more accurately describe the latent structure of the PSCC. The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin value (KMO), an index of sampling adequacy, was used to determine the suitability of the data for dimensionality analysis.30, 31 Additionally, we examined the screeplot of eigenvalues to help determine the number of components to retain. We subsequently rotated the initial factor solution using the VARIMAX technique. Items from Sample 2 were also subjected to a PCA in order to replicate and test the evidence of the structure of the PCA obtained from Sample 1 through successive unconstrained exploratory procedures. We conducted similar PCA for Sample 2 (N2) as described above for Sample 1 (N1).
Measurement reliability analysis
Scale reliability assessment was conducted to determine the degree to which items of the PSCC represent a coherent set that measures the same underlying construct. Cronbach coefficient alpha was used as an index of internal consistency of the PSCC. Measurement reliability analysis was conducted separately for each Sample 1 and Sample 2.
The mean age of the analytic sample was 51 years (range 18 - 98 years). Most of the sample was female (approximately >80%) and included participants from diverse racial/ethnic backgrounds including White (43%), Black (32%), Hispanic/Latino (23%), Asian (1%), American Indian/Alaska Native (0.5%) and other (0.5%). Half of the sample reported only a high school education or less. Participants presented with abnormal test findings or diagnosis from various types of cancer, including approximately 64% breast, 11% cervix, 12% colorectal, 13% prostate and 0.5% multiple concurrent cancer sites. Detailed demographic and clinical characteristics of study participants are provided in Table 1. All participants provided informed consent for participation. The Institutional Review Board of all participating institutions approved this study.
Table 1
Table 1
Demographic and Clinical Characteristics of 891 Participants
Sample 1, N1 – Testing of PSCC latent structure
Suitability for Factor Analysis (Sample 1, N1)
Examination of the items correlation matrix revealed the presence of many correlation coefficients of .30 and higher. In addition, the KMO value was 0.95, exceeding the recommended value of 0.60.30, 31 The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity also reached statistical significance (χ2 (378) = 7850.920; p = 0.001), which also supported the appropriateness of dimensionality analyses of the correlation matrix.32 Values were skewed toward favorable ratings mean coefficient of skewness, 1.45 (-2.2- -0.5).
Construct Validity (Sample 1, N1)
The initial unrotated PCA revealed the presence of five components with eigenvalues exceeding one (λ > 1): 12.698, 1.734, 1.383, 1.087, and 1.081, which explained 45.35%, 6.19%, 4.94%, 3.88%, and 3.86% of the total cumulative variance (64.22 %) respectively. Inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the second component. Catell's (1966) screeplot test and the eigenvalues criteria suggested that two components could be retained for further investigation.33 The components matrix showed that approximately 82% of the items (the first 23 items) loaded on the first component, with factor or components loadings ranging from 0.51 to 0.86. Of these 23 items, five loaded on factors 3 to 5, with components loadings ranging from -0.31 to 0.44. Another set of five additional items loaded moderately to strongly on factors 2 to 4, with components loadings ranging from 0.33 to 0.92. These second set of five items seem related primarily to time waiting at the hospital, transportation and money concerns, and explication of medical tests and health condition.
Subsequently, we removed items with moderate loadings on multiple components because of plausible overlapping contributions. We also decided to not include components defined by just one or two variables since such components are unstable, generally account for a very small percentage of the variance, and are difficult to correctly interpret.34 Based on these criteria, we ended up with a one-dimensional 18-item PSCC measure as indicated by a single-component structure with items forming a coherent set that explained 62% of the variance in patient satisfaction with cancer-related care (Table 2). The results of our psychometric analyses support the validity of PSCC for this sample.34, 35
Table 2
Table 2
Component Loadings for Sample 1 (N1 = 453) and Sample 2 (N2 = 438): Correlations between Individual items and the Underlying Component.
Sample 2, N2 – Validation of PSCC latent structure
Suitability for Factor Analysis (Sample 2, N2)
We tested the emergent structure of the data in Sample 1 by conducting another PCA on data from Sample 2. This approach is based on the notion that successful replication through successive unconstrained exploratory procedures will substantiate the underlying structure of the PSCC beyond any constrained confirmatory procedure. Similar to Sample 1, examination of the correlation matrix for Sample 2 revealed the presence of many correlation coefficients of .30 and higher. In addition, the KMO value was 0.95, exceeding the recommended value of 0.6.30, 31 The Bartlett's Test of Sphericity also reached statistical significance (χ2 (378) = 7853.56; p = 0.001), supporting the appropriateness of dimensionality analyses of the correlation matrix.32
Construct Validity (Sample 2, N2)
The initial unrotated PCA revealed the presence of five components with eigenvalues exceeding one (λ > 1): 13.12, 1.76, 1.39, 1.20, and 1.03, which explained 46.87 %, 6.31 %, 4.96%, 4.28%, and 3.66% of the total cumulative variance (66.09%), respectively. Inspection of the screeplot revealed a clear break after the second component. Catell's (1966) screeplot test and the eigenvalues criteria supported the retention of two components for further investigation.33 Similar to the PCA for Sample 1, the components matrix showed that approximately 82% of the items (the first 23 items) loaded on the first component, with factor or components loadings ranging from 0.48 to 0.86. Of these 23 items, eight loaded on factors 2, 4, and 5, with components loadings ranging from -0.41 to 0.47. Another set of five additional items loaded moderately to strongly on factors 2 to 5, with components loadings ranging from -0.62 to 0.68. Similar to the structure of the PSCC in Sample 1, the second set of five items in Sample 2 seemed to involve time waiting at the hospital, transportation and money concerns, and explication of medical tests and health condition. As previously described for Sample 1, we removed items with moderate loadings on multiple components (two or more) because of issues related to overlapping contribution in Sample 2. Just as in sample 1, we did not include components defined by just one or two variables since such components are unstable, account for a small percentage of the variance, and are difficult to reliably interpret.34 Based on these criteria, we also ended up with an 18-item one-dimensional measure for Sample 2 as indicated by a one-component structure (Tables 2). Results of our structural analyses supported the use of the PSCC as a valid measure for this sample and, more importantly confirmed the underlying structure of the PSCC through successive unconstrained exploratory procedures.34, 35
PSCC Reliability and Convergent and Divergent Validity
Scale reliability assessment was conducted for the 18-item PSCC
Internal consistency – degree to which items that make up this scale represent a coherent set that measures the same underlying construct – was evaluated using Cronbach's coefficient alpha. The results showed Cronbach coefficients alphas of approximately 0.95 and 0.96 based on standardized items for the PSCC for Sample 1 and Sample 2, respectively. The scale reliability assessment supported the use of the PSCC as a reliable tool of satisfaction with cancer care for this sample.36
Convergent and Divergent Validity
The PSCC total score for Sample 1 (N1 = 453) correlated with subscales of the CASE-Cancer (Understanding and participate in care (r = 0.40, p = .001), and Seek and obtain information (r = 0.32, p = .004)). The results, however, did not reveal any statistically significant correlation between the PSCC total score and age, primary language, marital status, and scores on the REALM long form (all p-values > .05). Likewise, the PSCC total score for Sample 2 (N2 = 438) positively correlated with subscales of the CASE-Cancer: Understanding and participate in care (r = 0.51, p = .001), Maintain a positive attitude (r = .30, p = .01), and Seek and obtain information (r = 0.39, p = .001). Again, the analysis revealed no statistically significant correlation between the PSCC total score and age, primary language, or marital status (all p-values > .05). Convergent and divergent validity analyses examined the degree to which the PSCC correlates with measures that assess related constructs (e.g., the “Understanding and participate in care” and the “”Seek and obtain information subscales of the CASE-Cancer) and differ from measures or indices of other unrelated constructs (e.g., age, primary language, or marital status), hence confirming that the items of the PSCC formed a coherent set that assess the specific construct of patient satisfaction with the cancer-related care they received.
We designed the PSCC to be a simple and easy to administer tool to assess satisfaction with cancer-related care for individuals from diverse cultural and socioeconomic populations. An important goal for developing the PSCC was to ensure the measure assesses experiences common to all patients regardless of whether or not they were navigated. This approach is expected to ensure the applicability and relevance of this measure to people from comparable racial, ethno-cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds.
The results of our structural analysis and psychometric validation revealed a parsimonious and reliable one-component solution for the PSCC. This measure provides a milieu-specific patient-oriented approach for assessing perceived relevance and satisfaction with cancer care for individuals from diverse racial, ethno-cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. The PSCC demonstrates high construct validity. The degree to which the items of the PSCC constitutes a coherent set that assess the underlying construct of patient satisfaction with cancer care was demonstrated by high indices of internal consistency and reliability.
The PSCC differs from previous generic scales in that it focuses on satisfaction with cancer-related care rather than the broader concept of health care in general or the narrower concept of cancer treatment for a particular, cancer, disease stage or location (hospital or ambulatory).37-40 The PSCC addresses the broad domain of cancer-related care including diagnostic testing in addition to treatment rather than focusing on particular or specific aspects of cancer care.41-43
The limitations of these findings merit comment. First, we adapted and modified items from existing instruments, but we did not conduct cognitive interviewing.44 However, a pilot study of the questionnaire revealed no problem that would have indicated a need to modify questionnaire items to help improve participants’ understanding or interpretation of the items. In addition, the PSCC scale was administered orally in order to minimize effects of low literacy; therefore, it is not certain that similar results would be obtained from participants who self-administer the scale.
Second, consistent with previous satisfaction measures, we observed significant skewing or tendency towards the higher end of satisfaction.45 Whether this represents truly favorable experiences or reflects low expectations is unknown.3 We did not specifically query patients about expectations. For many patients, their abnormal screening/diagnosis may have been their first experience with cancer-related care. Thus, they may have used a priori general healthcare experiences to form their expectations, which could explain the trend towards the higher end of reported satisfaction. This could also be representing a social desirability response bias related to interview format. 46 Further studies are needed to help determined if this finding will remain if patients responded anonymously and whether this ceiling effect will affect the sensitivity of the scale.
Furthermore, about 80 percent of the sample were women. Further studies are needed to confirm generalizability of the PSCC to men. Also, the PSCC accounted for 60 percent of the variance in patient satisfaction. Follow-up studies are needed to identify plausible factors that could account for the unexplained portion of this variance.
Lastly, we did not assess the responsiveness of the measure to change and/or how well it matches clinical impression. That is, we do not know how well the PSCC will capture differences in health care processes. Some aspects of care such as interpersonal processes may have a much greater impact on satisfaction than technical aspects.46-48
The strengths of the study include psychometric assessment of the PSCC measure with medically underserved and underrepresented individuals from racial/ethnic minorities and lower socioeconomic populations across different types of health care systems (e.g. community health centers, Veteran Administration, and University and community-based oncology practices). The development of the PSCC represents an initial attempt to develop and assess the validity and reliability of a context-specific measure of satisfaction with cancer-related care that is applicable to underserved and traditionally underrepresented racial/ethnic minorities and lower income individuals who face a variety of barriers to cancer care.
Validation of this PSCC measure will facilitate examination of the impact of patient navigation on cancer-related care.12 Further studies should examine the predictive validity of the PSCC for treatment-related outcomes within longitudinal research settings. Our analyses showed divergent and convergent capabilities of the PSCC. Additional studies that examine divergent and convergent characteristics of the PSCC with other relevant psychometrically valid and reliable health measures will provide evidence of the strength of the PSCC and further inform the underlying structure and validity of this measure for cancer patients. This scale, the PSCC, should prove useful for evaluation of PN not only in the participating nine sites of the NCI funded Patient Navigation Research Program, but in other cancer navigation programs as well.
Acknowledgments
Supported by grants from the National Cancer Institute (3U01CA116924-03S1, U01 CA11692401, 1R25CA10261801A1, U01CA116892, U01CA 117281, U01CA116903, U01CA116937, U01CA116885, U01CA116875, and U01CA116925) and the American Cancer Society (SIRSG-05-253-01). The contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, NCI.
REFERENCES
1. Bredart A, Razavi D, Roberson C, et al. Assessment of quality of care in an oncology institute using information on patients’ satisfaction: Oncology. 2001;61:120–128. [PubMed]
2. Sanda MG, Dunn RL, Michalski J, et al. Quality of life and satisfaction with outcome among prostate-cancer survivors. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1250–61. [PubMed]
3. Sitzia J, Wood N. Patient satisfaction: a review of issues and concepts. Soc Sci Med. 1997;45:1829–1843. [PubMed]
4. Institute Of Medicine Crossing the Quality Chasm: A new health system for the 21st Century. National Academies Press; 2001.
5. Pascoe GC. Patient satisfaction in primary health care: a literature review and analysis. Evaluation & Program Planning. 1983;6:185–210. [PubMed]
6. Cleary PD, McNeil BJ. Patient satisfaction as an indicator of quality of care. Inquiry. 1988;25:25–36. [PubMed]
7. Lenderking WR. Brief reflections on treatment satisfaction. Value Health. 2005;8(1):S2–5. [PubMed]
8. Saila T, Matilla E, Kaila M, Aalto P, et al. Measuring patient assessments of the quality of outpatient care: a systematic review. J. Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(1):148–154. [PubMed]
9. Ware JE, Jr, Snyder MK, Wright WR, et al. Defining and measuring patient satisfaction with medical care. Eval Program Plann. 1983;6:247–63. [PubMed]
10. Williams B. Patient satisfaction: a valid concept? Soc Sci Medicine. 1994;38(4):509–516. [PubMed]
11. Attkisson CC, Zwick R. The client satisfaction questionnaire. Psychometric properties and correlations with service utilization and psychotherapy outcome. Eval Program Plann. 1982;5:233–237. [PubMed]
12. Chow A, Meyer E, Darzi A, Athanassion T. Patient-reported outcome measures: the importance of patient satisfaction in surgery. Surgery. 2009;146(3):435–443. [PubMed]
13. Gold DT, McClung B. Approaches to Patient Education: Emphasizing the Long-Term Value of Compliance and Persistence. Am J Med. 2006;119(4):S32–S37. [PubMed]
14. Tomlinson JS. Patient satisfaction: an increasingly important measure of quality. Ann Surg Oncol. 2006 Jun;13(6):764–765. [PubMed]
15. Borras JM, Sanchez-Hernandez A, Navarro M, et al. Compliance, satisfaction, and quality of life of patients with colorectal cancer receiving home chemotherapy or outpatient treatment: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2001 Apr 7;322(7290):826. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
16. Lipscomb J, Reeve BB, Clauser Sb., et al. Patient-reported outcomes assessment in cancer trials: taking stock, moving forward. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(32):5133–5140. [PubMed]
17. Brédart A, Bottomley A. Treatment satisfaction as an outcome measure in cancer clinical trials. Exp Rev Pharmacoeconom Outcomes Res. 2002;2:597–606. [PubMed]
18. Freund K, Battaglia TA, Calhourn E, Dudley DJ, et al. National Cancer Institute Patient Navigation Research Program: methods, protocol, and measures. Cancer. 2008;113(12):3391–3399. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
19. Liberati A, Confalonierie A, Martino G, et al. Patients’ assessment of quality of care: A survey of a group of breast cancer patients in Italy. Tumori. 1985 Oct 31;71(5):491–7. [PubMed]
20. Bredart A, Bottomley A, Blazeby JM, Conroy T, Coens C, D'Haese S, et al. An international prospective study of the EORTC cancer in-patient satisfaction with care measure (EORTC IN-PATSAT32). European Journal of Cancer. 2005;41:2120–2131. [PubMed]
21. Oberst MT. Methodology in behavioural and psychosocial cancer research: Patients’ perceptions at care: Measurement of quality and satisfaction. Cancer. 1984 May 15;53(10 Suppl):2366–2375. [PubMed]
22. Stewart AL, Ware JE. Measuring Functioning and Well-Being: The Medical Outcomes. Study Approach Duke University Press; Durham NC: 1992.
23. Wiggers JH, Donovan KO, Redman S, Sanson-Fisher RW. Cancer patient satisfaction with care. Cancer. 1990;66:610–616. [PubMed]
24. Lo C, Burman LD, Rodin G, Zimmermann C. Measuring patient satisfaction in oncology palliative care: psychometric properties of the FAMCARE-patient scale. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(6):747–752. [PubMed]
25. Teno JM, Lima JC, K.D., Lyons KD. Cancer patient assessment and reports of excellence. Reliability and validity of advanced cancer patient perceptions of the quality of care. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(10):1621–1626. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
26. Wolf MS, Chang CH, Davis TC, Makoul GT. Development and validation of the Communication and Attitudinal Self-efficacy (CASE) scale: Cancer version. Patient Educ Couns. 2005;57(3):333–341. [PubMed]
27. Comrey AL, Lee HB. A First Course in Factor Analysis. 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; Hillsdale, NJ: 1992.
28. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 5th ed. Allyn and Bacon; Boston: 2007.
29. Guadagnoli Edward, Wayne F. Velicer. Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psych Bull. 1988;103(2):265–275. [PubMed]
30. Kaiser H. A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35:401–415.
31. Kaiser H. An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika. 1974;39:31–36.
32. Bartlett MS. A note on the multiplying factors for various chi square approximations. (Series B).Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. 1954;16:296–298.
33. Cattell RB. The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research. 1966;1(2):245–276.
34. Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics (5/e) Allyn and Bacon; Boston, M.A.: 2007.
35. Thurstone LL. Multiple factor analysis. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1947.
36. Nunnally JO. Psychometric Theory. McGraw-Hill; New York, NY: 1978.
37. Atkinson MJ, Sinha A, Hass SL, Colman SS, Kumar RN, Brod M, et al. Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:12. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
38. Bredart A, Razuvi D, Robertson C, Batel-Copel L, Larson G, Lichosick D, Meyza J, Schraub S, Von L. Comprehensive assessment of satisfaction with care: preliminary psychometric analysis in French, Polish, Swedish and Italian oncology patients. Patient Educ & Couns. 2001;43(3):243–253. [PubMed]
39. Greenfield TK, Attkisson CC. Steps toward a multifactorial satisfaction scale for primary care and mental health services. Evaluation Program Planning. 1989;12:271–278.
40. Sulmasy DP, McIlvane JM, Pasley PM, Rahn M. A scale for measuring patient perceptions of the quality of end-of-life care and satisfaction with treatment: the reliability and validity of QUEST. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2002;23:458–47. [PubMed]
41. Defossez G, Mathouwin-Pelissier S, Ingrand I, Gasquet I, Sifer-Rivierre L, et al. Satisfaction with care among patients with non-metastatic breast cancer: development and first steps of validation of the Defossez G. REPERES-60 questionnaire. BMC Cancer. 2007 Jul 16;7:129. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
42. Llewellyn CD, Robert H, McGurk M, Weinman J. Development and preliminary validation of a new measure to assess satisfaction with information among head and neck cancer patients: the satisfaction with cancer information profile (SCIP). Head & Neck. 2006;28(6):540–548. [PubMed]
43. Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin. 2007;57:278–300. [PubMed]
44. Drennan J. Cognitive interviewing: verbal data in the design and pretesting of questionnaires. Journal of Advanced Nursing. 2003;42(1):57–63. [PubMed]
45. Crow R, Gage H, Hampson S, et al. The measurement of satisfaction with healthcare: implications for practice from a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 2002;6:1–244. [PubMed]
46. Chang JT, Hays RD, Shekelle PG, Mclean CH, et al. Patients’ global ratings of their health care are not associated with the technical quality of their care. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2006;144(9):665–72. [PubMed]
47. Napoles AM, Gregorich SE, Santoyo-Olsson J, O'Brien H, Stewart AL. Interpersonal processes of care and patient satisfaction: do associations differ by race, ethnicity, and language? Health Serv Res. 2009;44(4):1326–1344. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
48. Rao M, Clarke A, Sanderson C, Hammersley R. Patients’ own assessments of quality of primary care compared with objective records based measures of technical quality of care: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2006;333(7557):19. [PMC free article] [PubMed]