Adaptation of the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire in the Polish context: factorial structure and validity of the scale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Valid assessment of body image is salient in therapy and rehabilitation of women suffering from breast cancer. Adequate instruments are still lacking in this domain. To overcome this limitation two aims were formulated in the study. First, we tested the factorial structure of the Body Image after Breast Cancer Questionnaire (BIBCQ) developed by Baxter (1998) in Canada, in the Polish context. Then, we tested the construct validity of the scale. The scale is based on a multidimensional concept of the body image of chronically ill individuals proposed by Vamos (1993). Participants and procedure A group of 270 women at the mean age of 55 (range of 23-81) with breast cancer who underwent conservation, mastectomy, or lumpectomy surgery was sampled in the Amazonki community. Results Confirmatory factor analysis was used to test the factorial structure of the instrument. To test the convergent validity, scales assessing body self, body image, self-esteem, and depression were used. Divergent validity was analyzed in the context of the social desirability construct. Discriminant validity was based on comparisons between women who had undergone lumpectomy or mastectomy surgery. The results showed that within two out of six subscales proposed by Baxter, two additional subscales had to be distinguished. However, some differences in comparisons with previous validation studies were also found. Conclusions The BIBCQ scale was found to be a valid multidimensional tool of body image assessment in the Polish context. The results are discussed in terms of cross-cultural differences in body image perception in breast cancer patients and guidelines for the scale’s implementation in the Polish context.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".