Validation of Resilience Models about Cancer in Adolescence and Youth in Taiwan
This study uses the disease resilience model as a framework to explore the relationship between physical, mental, spiritual, and social aspects of resilience in adolescents with cancer and to verify the resilience model. It is expected that the research results will serve as a reference for designing nursing interventions in the future and develop local Resilience model to improve quality of care.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
223
Kaohsiung Medical University
Kaohsiung City, Taiwan
Herth Hope Index (HHI)
Herth Hope Index (HHI) has 12 items. The12 items developed by Herth (1992) measures adults hope and contains three factors: cognitive-temporal (positive and desired outcome in the future), affective-behavioral (a feeling of confident with the reality-based goals and desirable outcomes), and affiliative-contextual (interconnect between self and others)(Herth, 1992). A higher score indicates a higher degree of hope.
Time frame: 1 year
Resilience in Illness Scale (HARS)
HARS is a single factor scale, consisting of 13 items that measure how participants feel or think about managing their health since diagnosis. The internal consistency reliability (0.84 to 0.86) and content validity have been tested by previous qualitative research (Haase \& Marcia, 1994; Haase \& Philips, 2004). Participants are asked to mark how much they agree or disagree with each sentence using response options from 1 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree) (Haase, et al., 1999). Higher total scores indicate a higher degree of resilience.
Time frame: 1 year
Symptom Distress Scale (SDS)
SDS is developed from McCorkle \& Young (1978), with a total of 13 questions, using a 1-5 scoring method. Higher of the total score, the higher the degree of symptom distress. The reliability of the instrument (r=.79-.89), using Ware's health perception scale test (r=0.9) (McCorkle, 1978). The reliability of the revised Chinese version is (Cronbach's α =.91-.96), the content validity index (CVI) is 0.95, and the readability is 0.95 (Lai, 1998). Higher total scores indicate a higher degree of symptom distress.
Time frame: 1 year
mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale - Revised
It is developed from the uncertainty scale developed by Mishel, 1981, with a total of 33 questions. The reliability of the instrument is 0.91. The reliability of each scale ranges from 0.64-0.89, and its validity has been verified through theory (Mishel, 1981). The internal consistency reliability of the Chinese version of the literature is Cronbach's α =0.87, the internal consistency of the subscales is 0.85 and 0.66, and the simultaneous validity is 0.571 (Xu \& Huang, 1996). Higher total scores indicate a higher degree of uncertainty.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: 1 year
Jalowiec Coping Scale-Revised
It is developed from Jalowiec et al, (1984). There are 40 items. The test-retest reliability of the instrument is 0.79. The internal consistency within the subscale is between 0.85-0.86. The total scale α=0.78 and the subscale is 0.84 (question solution), 0.83 (defensive behavior) (Jalowiec et al, 1984).Higher total scores indicate a higher frequency of used coping behaviors.
Time frame: 1 year
Spiritual Perspective Scale (SPS)
The SPS was developed from Jalowiec et al, (1984). There are 40 questions in total. The test-retest reliability of the instrument is 0.79. The internal consistency within the subscale is between 0.85-0.86. The total scale α=0.78 and the subscale is 0.84 (question solution), 0.83 (defensive behavior) (Jalowiec et al, 1984).
Time frame: 1 year
Perceived Social Support (PSS)
It is developed from the Perceived Family Support Scale of Procidano \& Heller (1983). The scale has 20 questions and Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficients are .88 and 0.91 (Procidano \& Heller, 1983; Puskar \& Bernardo, Stark, 2008).Higher total scores indicate a higher social support.
Time frame: 1 year
Family Strengths
It is developed by Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, \& Wilson (1985). There are 12 questions in the scale, and the items are: family self-esteem, family trust, family loyalty, family problem-solving ability, question options range from strongly agree to strongly disagree, the score range is from 12 to 60, the higher the score, the higher the family strength, the alpha reliability coefficients are .73 and .88, Test-retest reliability was .73 and .79.
Time frame: 1 year
Self-Transcendence Scale
There are 15 questions, scored from 1 to 4. The higher the score, the higher the self-transcendence ability. The Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of the tool is .70-.94 (Chen, 2009); the pretest Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of the Chinese version of the literature is. 79, and the post-test Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient is .78 (Chen, 2009).
Time frame: 1 year
Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale
It is developed from Olson, et al, (1985), with a total of 30 questions. The reliability of the instrument is .87 (cohesion) and .78 (adaptability) (Olson et al, 1985); the Chinese version of the document Cronbach's α\>0.6 (Fei, 1991).The higher the score is, the higher the family adaptability and cohesionself-transcendence.
Time frame: 1 year
Parent-Adolescent Communication
It is developed from Olson, McCubbin, Barnes, Larsen, Muxen, \& Wilson, (1985). There are 30 questions, which can be divided into two subscales, with reliabilities of 0.87 and 0.78 respectively, using the confirmatory factor analysis (Olson et al. ,1985). The Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the Chinese version of the father-child communication questionnaire is .76, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient of the mother-child communication questionnaire is .84(Chen, 2001). Higher scores indicate better communication.
Time frame: 1 year