Validation of a Cultural Cancer Screening Scale for Mammogram Utilization in a Sample of African American Women
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Cultural Cancer Screening Scale (CCSS) was developed to identify cultural factors relevant to breast and cervical cancer screening in a sample of Hispanic and white women in Southern California. This scale identified 5 distinct cultural factors as relevant in cancer screening decision making. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to consider psychometric estimates of the validity and reliability of this scale in a sample of African American women residing in an urban area of New Jersey. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS: A total of 122 women, aged 40 to 90 years, with no history of breast cancer participated in the study. Internal consistency, reliability, construct, and predictive validity were assessed. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis resulted in the formation of 5 subsets: cancer screening fatalism, negative beliefs about health professionals, catastrophic disease expectations, symptomatic deterrents, and sociocultural deterrents, all clearly independent of each other. The Cronbach's α for the composite score of the scale was .89. Predictive validity of the composite scale score was not significant, but 4 cultural items were significant: problems making an appointment, lack of transportation, discomfort with health professionals, and health professionals inappropriately touch their patients. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the CCSS demonstrated acceptable preliminary values of reliability and validity in this population. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Cultural and social factors relevant to cancer screening are very important for all women. The CCSS has not yet been used in nursing research but would be very appropriate for nurses to use to better understand why women choose to access cancer screening services.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".