Reliability and Validity of the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine the reliability and validity of the Body Image After Breast Cancer Questionnaire (BIBCQ) in a series of outpatients with breast cancer. One hundred sixty-four breast cancer patients attending outpatient clinics completed questionnaires at baseline. The patients' BIBCQ scores were compared with their scores on related psychological measures including depression, self-esteem, quality of life, and sexual functioning. Scores on the BIBCQ for women after mastectomy and breast conservation were compared. Select items of the BIBCQ were compared between women with and without breast cancer. Patients received a second questionnaire after a 2 week interval to assess test-retest reliability. Good reliability was found for the six scales (ranging from 0.77 to 0.87). The BIBCQ correlated with similar measures as predicted, but not with a measure of social desirability. The BIBCQ distinguished between women treated with lumpectomy and mastectomy, and between women with breast cancer and a control group, supporting the validity of the BIBCQ. The BIBCQ provides a reliable and valid assessment of the long-term impact of breast cancer on body image. It is suitable for use in research focusing on this issue.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it