Search

Objective Cancer patients in Hong Kong and Taiwan share traditional Chinese as a written form of language, but each region has its own sociocultural background. This study examined if the four-factor model (self, spiritual, life orientation, and interpersonal) of the Chinese version of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI-C), developed for Hong Kong cancer survivors, could be applied to cancer survivors in Taiwan. Methods Multisample confirmatory factor analyses (MS-CFA) were used to examine the factorial invariance of the PTGI-C among cancer survivors in Taiwan ( n = 217) and Hong Kong ( n = 223). Results The goodness-of-fit of the four-factor model was satisfactory, χ²(180) = 372.36 (χ²/df = 2.07), goodness-of-fit index (GFI) = 0.90, adjusted GFI (AGFI) = 0.87, comparative fit index (CFI) = 0.92, Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) = 0.91, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = 0.05, Akaike information criterion (AIC) = 492.36. This result suggests that the factor structure of the PTGI-C developed in Hong Kong could be applied to cancer survivors in Taiwan. The internal reliabilities of the 15-item whole scale, as well as all the subscales, were good and similar to those reported previously. Interregion comparison revealed that the Taiwan sample had higher mean 'spiritual' and 'interpersonal' posttraumatic growth subscale scores than the Hong Kong sample. Conclusions The four-factor model of the PTGI-C is invariant among cancer survivors using traditional Chinese as a written form of the language. The differences in the degree of some posttraumatic growth dimensions may be because of differences in cultural factors and in psychosocial support for cancer patients between the two regions. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study assesses the sensitivity and specificity of Mandarin versions of two psychosocial screening tools for adjustment, anxiety and depressive disorders: the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and the Distress Thermometer (DT). Methods: The two scales were used to screen 103 consecutive cancer patients seen for psychiatric evaluation at KF-SYSCC between May and November 2004 prior to their psychiatric interviews. Each scale was tested against clinical psychiatric diagnoses based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th edition for their sensitivity and specificity. Results: For the Mandarin version of the DT, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analyses identified a DT score of 4 as the optimal cut-off, with sensitivity and specificity of 98 and 73%, respectively. For the Mandarin version of the HADS, ROC identified a score of 9 and 8 as the optimal cutoffs for the respective anxiety and depression subscales (HADS-a and HADS-d), with sensitivities and specificities of 84 and 73, 72 and 86%, respectively. For the full scale of the HADS (HADS-t), 15 was identified as the optimal cutoff, which yielded sensitivity and specificity of 84 and 68%, respectively. Using the frequency table, the concordance rate of the two scales was found to be 72-80% based on the above optimal cut-offs. Conclusion: The Mandarin versions of the HADS and the DT are efficacious for screening anxiety and depression for our population. Compared with the HADS-t, the DT appears to have not only higher sensitivity, but also higher specificity. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]