Development and psychometric evaluation of the cancer screening behavioral decision-making scale for high-risk populations: a methodological study

Behavioral decision-making plays a critical role in the willingness of high-risk populations to participate in cancer screening. However, there is currently a lack of valid and reliable tools for evaluating the level of cancer screening behavioral decision-making in these populations. This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing the level of cancer screening behavioral decision-making in high-risk populations. Scale development was conducted in six phases: (1) a literature review and establishment of the Protective Action Decision Model as the theoretical framework; (2) individual interviews to generate an initial item pool; (3) two rounds of Delphi consultation and a pilot study to refine the items; (4) item reduction; (5) and (6) psychometric evaluation using both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). A total of 766 high-risk individuals were recruited through purposive sampling. The data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0, Mplus 6.1, and R 4.4.3. The CTT analysis included assessments of construct validity, content validity, known-group validity, and reliability. IRT analysis was used to examine item discrimination, difficulty parameters, item information, item characteristic curves, marginal reliability, and differential item functioning. The final scale comprises 24 items across five dimensions, explaining 62.61% of the total variance. Cross-validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the proposed five-factor structure. The Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients for the subscales ranged from 0.729 to 0.904 and 0.712 to 0.817, respectively. The scale’s average content validity index was 0.925, with item-level indices ranging from 0.867 to 1.00. Most items demonstrated strong psychometric performance, with favorable item characteristic curves and information functions. The CSBD Scale has strong psychometric properties and is a reliable, valid instrument for assessing behavioral decision-making in cancer screening. This tool may provide a foundation for developing targeted interventions to improve screening participation, ultimately enhancing early detection and survival outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Published
2026-08-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-026-02608-7
Primary Topic
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development and psychometric evaluation of the cancer screening behavioral decision-making scale for high-risk populations: a methodological study

Feifei Huang, Chenxing Zhang, Wei-Ti Chen, Rachel Arbing et al.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
article

Development and psychometric evaluation of the cancer screening behavioral decision-making scale for high-risk populations: a methodological study

Feifei Huang, Chenxing Zhang, Wei-Ti Chen, Rachel Arbing, Fangfang Wang, Yonglin Li
article en

Abstract

Behavioral decision-making plays a critical role in the willingness of high-risk populations to participate in cancer screening. However, there is currently a lack of valid and reliable tools for evaluating the level of cancer screening behavioral decision-making in these populations. This study aimed to develop an instrument for assessing the level of cancer screening behavioral decision-making in high-risk populations. Scale development was conducted in six phases: (1) a literature review and establishment of the Protective Action Decision Model as the theoretical framework; (2) individual interviews to generate an initial item pool; (3) two rounds of Delphi consultation and a pilot study to refine the items; (4) item reduction; (5) and (6) psychometric evaluation using both Classical Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT). A total of 766 high-risk individuals were recruited through purposive sampling. The data were analyzed using SPSS 26.0, Mplus 6.1, and R 4.4.3. The CTT analysis included assessments of construct validity, content validity, known-group validity, and reliability. IRT analysis was used to examine item discrimination, difficulty parameters, item information, item characteristic curves, marginal reliability, and differential item functioning. The final scale comprises 24 items across five dimensions, explaining 62.61% of the total variance. Cross-validation using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the proposed five-factor structure. The Cronbach’s α and McDonald’s ω coefficients for the subscales ranged from 0.729 to 0.904 and 0.712 to 0.817, respectively. The scale’s average content validity index was 0.925, with item-level indices ranging from 0.867 to 1.00. Most items demonstrated strong psychometric performance, with favorable item characteristic curves and information functions. The CSBD Scale has strong psychometric properties and is a reliable, valid instrument for assessing behavioral decision-making in cancer screening. This tool may provide a foundation for developing targeted interventions to improve screening participation, ultimately enhancing early detection and survival outcomes.

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Fujian Medical University (CN), University of California, Los Angeles (US), Capital Medical University (CN)
National Natural Science Foundation of China
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 13%
Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.