Construct Definition and Scale Development for Defensive Information Processing: An Application to Colorectal Cancer Screening
Construct Definition and Scale Development for Defensive Information Processing: An Application to Colorectal Cancer Screening
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0027311
复制
发表时间：
2013-02-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Swank, Paul R.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
McQueen, Amy;Vernon, Sally W.;Swank, Paul R.
目的：个人有一个庞大的剧目防御策略处理个人相关的负面反馈，包括健康风险信息。防御过程涵盖在不同的文献和理论模型，如扩展的平行过程模型，但在精神病理学领域之外，很少有人注意到防御的概念化和测量。在这项研究中，我们回顾了广泛的文献，并制定了一个综合的概念模型，各种防御策略，以指导测量的发展。此外，我们开发和测试了结直肠癌筛查的防御措施，这是一个重要的公共卫生问题。方法：我们对筛查年龄成人（n = 226，287）的独立样本进行了2次调查，使用验证性因素分析和结构方程模型反复测试和改进措施。结果如下：我们的概念模型告知我们的发展措施的防御性信息处理的4个阶段（注意力回避，钝化，抑制，和counterarguing）和文献综述确定了每个阶段的潜在措施。最终分量表范围从3到8个项目，表现出良好的内部可靠性，并表现出预期的模式与结直肠癌筛查的其他相关性。在这两项调查中提供的项目被发现在很大程度上是不变的整个依从性状态筛选指南。结论：未来的研究计划复制和验证这些量表。我们预计，概念模型和样本措施将增加对防御过程的理解，并可用于设计和评估未来的干预措施和癌症风险沟通，以潜在地接触和影响更具抵抗力的个体。
Objective: Individuals have a large repertoire of defensive strategies for dealing with personally relevant negative feedback including health risk information. Defensive processes are covered in a diverse literature and in theoretical models such as the extended parallel process model, but outside the psychopathological domain, little attention has been paid to the conceptualization and measurement of defenses. In this study, we reviewed the broad literature and developed an integrated conceptual model of various defensive strategies to guide measurement development. In addition, we developed and tested measures of defensiveness for colorectal cancer screening, an important public health issue. Method: We conducted 2 surveys of independent samples of screening-age adults (n = 226, 287) to iteratively test and refine measures using confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation models. Results: Our conceptual model informed our development of measures for 4 stages of defensive information processing (attention avoidance, blunting, suppression, and counterarguing) and the literature review identified potential measures for each stage. Final subscales ranged from 3 to 8 items, showed good internal reliability, and demonstrated expected patterns of association with other correlates of colorectal cancer screening. Items available in both surveys were found to be largely invariant across adherence status to screening guidelines. Conclusion: Future research is planned to replicate and validate these scales. We anticipate that the conceptual model and sample measures will increase understanding of defensive processes and can be used in the design and evaluation of future interventions and cancer risk communications to potentially reach and impact more resistant individuals.