The BRCA Self‐Concept Scale: a new instrument to measure self‐concept in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
UNLABELLED: Genetic testing for BRCA1/2 has psychosocial impacts including those related to views of personal health, sense of self and identity and body image. The centrality of a person's self-concept in maintaining physical and psychosocial well-being has been well recognized; however, to date research exploring altered self-concept related to carrier knowledge is limited. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to develop and validate a scale to measure the self-concept among individuals testing positive for BRCA1/2 mutations. METHODS: The study was conducted in two phases: phase I: item generation and refinement and phase II: scale selection and initial validation. During phase I, scale items were generated through individual interviews and focus groups of women with BRCA1/2 mutations, including women with or without a prior diagnosis of cancer. In phase II items were selected based on several criteria resulting in a 25-item scale, which underwent a reliability analyses and preliminary validation with 115 women. A second sample of 126 women was used to conduct further validation and samples were pooled to conduct factor analysis and the final scale selection. RESULTS: A 17-item self-concept scale emerged having three factors: stigma, vulnerability and mastery demonstrating evidence for an instrument with promising psychometric properties (total scale alpha=0.90). CONCLUSIONS: The scale has direct relevance for research in facilitating our understanding of the specific aspects of the self, which are vulnerable to BRCA1/2 testing and which play a role in clinical outcomes, to facilitate the development and specific testing of interventions and may be used as an outcome measure. Specific measurement tools for genetic populations will ultimately assist in the clinical management of these populations.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".