The bodily threat monitoring scale: Development and preliminary validation in adult and childhood cancer survivors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Bodily threat monitoring is a core clinical feature of Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) and is targeted in psycho-oncology treatments, yet no comprehensive self-report measure exists. The aim of this study was the theory-informed development and initial validation of the Bodily Threat Monitoring Scale (BTMS). METHODS: Adult survivors of breast and gynaecological cancers (Study 1: N = 306, age = 37-81 years) and childhood cancer survivors (Study 2: N = 126, age = 10-25 years) completed the BTMS, designed to assess how individuals monitor for and interpret uncertain symptoms as indicating that something is wrong with their body. Participants completed measures to assess construct and criterion validity of the BTMS, and childhood cancer survivors (Study 2) completed the BTMS again 2 weeks later to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: The 19-item BTMS demonstrated excellent internal consistency across adult and childhood cancer samples (α = 0.90-0.96). Factor analyses indicated two subscales capturing 1. Monitoring of bodily sensations and 2. Threatening interpretations of bodily sensations. Two-week stability estimates were acceptable. For construct validity, the BTMS correlated with body vigilance and anxiety sensitivity. The BTMS also demonstrated criterion validity, yielding significant associations with FCR, intolerance of uncertainty, help-seeking behaviours, and quality of life. The BTMS was associated with FCR while controlling for body vigilance and anxiety sensitivity, indicating a unique contribution of this theory-informed measure. CONCLUSIONS: The BTMS shows evidence of sound psychometric properties and could be used to elucidate the role of bodily threat monitoring in the maintenance and management of FCR.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".