Background: Few studies have examined the psychometric properties and invariance of scales measuring constructs relevant to colorectal cancer screening (CRCS). We sought to: (i) evaluate the factorial validity of four core constructs associated with CRCS (benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and optimism); and (ii) examine measurement invariance by screening status (currently screened, overdue, never screened).

Methods: We used baseline survey data from a longitudinal behavioral intervention trial to increase CRCS among U.S. veterans. Respondents were classified as currently screened (n = 3,498), overdue (n = 418), and never screened (n = 1,277). The measurement model was developed using a random half of the sample and then validated with the second half of the sample and the full baseline sample (n = 5,193). Single- and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine measurement invariance by screening status.

Results: The four-factor measurement model demonstrated good fit. Factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual item variance and covariance were invariant when comparing participants never screened and overdue for CRCS, indicating strict measurement invariance. All factor loadings were invariant among the currently screened and overdue groups. Only the benefits scale was invariant across current screeners and never screeners. Non-invariant items were primarily from the barriers scale.

Conclusion: Our findings provide additional support for the construct validity of scales of CRCS benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and optimism. A greater understanding of the differences between current and never screeners may improve measurement invariance.

Impact: Measures of benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and optimism may be used to specify intervention targets and effectively assess change pre- and post-intervention across screening groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 22(12); 2295–302. ©2013 AACR.

Behavioral interventions that promote the uptake and maintenance of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) must effectively address modifiable determinants of screening behavior. Over the past decade or so, a number of modifiable determinants have been identified (1, 2) and effective strategies to increase CRCS have been developed (3). Most of these modifiable determinants have come from health behavior theories and models; however, there is overlap in the conceptual definitions of constructs from different theories (e.g., confidence to perform a behavior is labeled self-efficacy in Social Cognitive Theory and perceived behavioral control in the Theory of Planned Behavior), and items used to measure the same construct are often not consistent across studies. The use of health behavior theories in interventions is recommended to advance our understanding of the theoretical mechanisms that drive behavior change (4). As a result, there is increasing interest in building consensus about theoretical constructs and health behavior theories and models (5–7). An important part of this effort entails establishing the validity of scales developed to measure psychosocial constructs. The use of valid and reliable measures is essential to examining the effects of behavioral interventions on psychosocial determinants of behavior change. In addition, the use of standard measures allows for better comparison across studies.

Few studies have examined the psychometric properties of scales measuring constructs associated with CRCS (8–12). Vernon and colleagues (8) examined five core constructs relevant to CRCS measured in a worksite intervention to increase CRCS among male automotive workers: salience and coherence, perceived susceptibility, cancer worries, response efficacy, and social influence. The five-factor structure has since been replicated via confirmatory factor analysis with data from a U.S. urban primary care clinic (10) and a population-based sample in Ontario, Canada (11). McQueen and colleagues (12) later provided evidence for the factorial validity of constructs measuring CRCS pros (i.e., perceived benefits), cons (i.e., perceived barriers), and self-efficacy in a clinic sample.

The psychometric characteristics of CRCS constructs must also be similar across various subgroups to make valid comparisons across different segments of the population. Of the studies that evaluated psychosocial constructs associated with CRCS, three have also examined measurement invariance (i.e., equivalence) across race and gender subgroups (10–12). Measurement invariance provides evidence of equivalence by examining the extent to which properties and interpretations of scale scores may generalize across population groups and settings (13). Collectively, studies of CRCS construct validity and invariance have contributed to the evidence base on establishing valid measures by demonstrating that important psychosocial measures of CRCS have similar psychometric properties in diverse settings.

To our knowledge, no study has tested measurement invariance that includes current screeners, overdue screeners, and never screeners in the same sample. We found only one study (12) that examined measurement invariance by screening status, and that study only included individuals who had never been screened or were overdue. Thus, it is unknown whether underlying latent constructs (e.g., barriers, self-efficacy) differ among those with different screening histories. Because past screening behavior is an important determinant of future screening behavior (1, 2), experience with CRCS, or lack thereof, may influence interpretation of and/or response to specific survey items in ways that make the measures of theoretical constructs less interpretable. A greater understanding of the similarities and differences, if any, in the experience and concerns of individuals with different screening histories may help us refine our measures and intervention targets.

We extend the findings of prior studies by evaluating the following specific aims: (i) examine the factorial validity of four constructs associated with CRCS (perceived benefits/pros, perceived barriers/cons, self-efficacy, and outlook/optimism); and (ii) examine measurement invariance (i.e., equivalence) across subgroups of participants currently screened, overdue, or never screened. Measurement invariance among the screening subgroups will allow researchers to make valid comparisons of CRCS constructs, regardless of screening history. Because there is no consensus on the best approach to improve scales lacking invariance (14), we will focus on identifying the items with the strongest evidence of equivalence across groups and discuss several options for treating non-invariant items. Developing scales with strong psychometric properties is an iterative process of item refinement and evaluation. Establishing valid and reliable measures will advance our understanding and application of psychosocial constructs to interventions that effectively promote CRCS.

Setting

This research was conducted as part of a randomized controlled trial to promote CRCS among a population-based sample of U.S. veterans (clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT01079533). The trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Texas Health Science Center (Houston, TX). We used baseline survey data from the intervention trial.

Participants and procedures

Our sample consisted of 5,287 U.S. veterans ages 50 to 64 that responded to a baseline survey and were potentially eligible for an efficacy trial. Study invitation letters and surveys were mailed between September 2008 and February 2010. We excluded participants that did not complete any of the psychosocial scales on the survey (n = 94). The sample for this analysis consists of the remaining 5,193 respondents to the baseline survey.

Measures

The baseline survey was administered by mail and included questions on prior CRCS, as well as 35 items measuring four psychosocial constructs (perceived benefits/pros, perceived barriers/cons, self-efficacy, and optimism/outlook). Respondents were classified as being currently screened, overdue, or never screened based on U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and American Cancer Society guidelines (15, 16): (i) annual fecal occult blood test (FOBT); (ii) sigmoidoscopy or double contrast barium enema within the last 5 years; or (iii) colonoscopy in the last 10 years.

The scales evaluated in this study were adapted from our prior work (17). Perceived benefits, or positive aspects of the behavior, was measured with eight items, and perceived barriers, or negative aspects of the behavior, was measured using eleven items. Self-efficacy assessed confidence in performing certain aspects of CRCS with 10 items. Optimism was defined as a positive expectancy of the future. To our knowledge, optimism/outlook has not been extensively studied nor have its psychometric properties been evaluated in relation to CRCS. Dispositional optimism has been shown to be an important predictor of health maintenance behaviors (18). Researchers have increasingly become interested in examining how traits like optimism and defensive processing (19) may influence screening behavior. Six items were used from the Life Orientation Test-Revised as a measure of an individual's expectations of good versus bad outcomes (20). Participants reported general optimism, not optimism related to CRCS or cancer. All items were measured on a five-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” (1) to “strongly agree” (5).

Data analysis

Single- and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was done using Mplus 7.0 (21) to test a four-factor a priori model. We used maximum likelihood estimation with robust standard errors (MLR) to account for the non-normality of the data (skewness: range −2.94–2.221, mean −0.37; kurtosis: range 1.59–10.97, mean 3.85). Full information maximum likelihood (FIML) was used to include respondents with missing data. FIML is preferable to other methods such as listwise deletion and single imputation (22, 23). There was less than 3% missing data for any variable included in the analysis. Missing values for respondents with partial data ranged from 31 (“attpos”) to 112 (“bfind” and “btrans”). Several tests were used to evaluate the fit of the measurement models: χ2/degrees of freedom test, comparative fit index (CFI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and its associated 90% confidence interval. Adequate to good fit is indicated when the CFI value is between 0.90 and 0.95 and above (24, 25). RMSEA values <0.07 suggest good model fit (25).

To examine factorial validity (Aim 1), we split the study population into two random samples. Using the first sample (n = 2,598), we allowed for improvement and modifications with error covariances and by removing poor-performing items (i.e., low factor loading or cross-loading). The final correlated four-factor model was then confirmed with the second half of the sample (n = 2,595) as well as the full sample (n = 5,193).

To test measurement invariance (Aim 2), participants were divided into three screening subgroups: currently screened (n = 3,498), overdue (n = 418), and never screened (n = 1,277). Using the measurement model developed in Aim 1, we performed independent, single-group confirmatory factor analysis on each of the three screening subgroups (baseline model). Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was then used to determine if the model was invariant across screening subgroups: currently screened vs. overdue; overdue vs. never screened; and currently screened vs. never screened. We expected that invariance would be more likely between adjacent groups (i.e., currently screened vs. overdue) than extreme groups (i.e., currently screened vs. never screened).

Four models were created to test weak, strong, and strict measurement invariance as recommended by Wu and colleagues (13) and Dimitrov (26). The first model (i.e., configural model) was unconstrained and allowed all factor loadings, intercepts, residual item variances/covariances, and factor variances/covariances to vary between groups. The second model tested metric invariance (i.e., weak invariance) by setting all factor loadings to be equal; the third model assessed scalar invariance (i.e., strong invariance) and constrained both factor loadings and item intercepts to be equal across screening groups. Finally, the fourth model tested the invariance of item uniqueness (i.e., strict invariance) by constraining the residual item variances and covariances to be equal. If any constraints produced significantly worse model fit, we examined the invariance of each scale separately. Similarly, we examined partial item invariance for factor loadings by successively releasing the constraints on individual items within scales that could not be fully constrained to be equal across groups.

For all tests of invariance, we used Satorra–Bentler χ2 difference testing (27, 28) to evaluate the equality of covariance structures. Because the χ2 statistic is often sensitive to large sample sizes, the Satorra–Bentler statistic incorporates a scaling correction factor for non-normal sampling distributions. We started with the least constrained model and subsequently imposed equality constraints of specific parameters across groups, thus producing nested models that are tested against each other using the Satorra–Bentler test. Invariance is indicated when the χ2 value is not statistically significant (P > 0.05).

Cronbach α was computed to evaluate the internal consistency reliability of the four scales. Alphas ≥ 0.70 were considered good (29).

A covariance matrix for the currently screened (Supplementary Table S1), overdue (Supplementary Table S2), and never screened (Supplementary Table S3) groups are available online as electronic Supplementary Material.

Measurement model

In developing the measurement model, the modification indices suggested that two benefits items (“benefits of screening outweigh the difficulties” and “screening tests are safe and have few complications”) cross-loaded with self-efficacy and barriers (Table 1). After adding cross-loading paths to the model, both items were confirmed to be significant cross-loaders and were dropped from the final model. To further improve overall model fit, and because each made conceptual sense, we then added three correlated error variances (“always optimistic” with “expect the best,” “complete CRCS even if nervous” with “complete CRCS even if embarrassed,” and “do not have insurance or copay is too high” with “too expensive”). All changes to the measurement model improved overall fit. The final correlated four-factor model was comprised of 33 items (6 benefits, 11 barriers, 10 self-efficacy, 6 optimism) and had acceptable fit to the data (Table 1). A similar fit was observed in the second half of the sample and the full baseline sample (Table 1). Cronbach alpha was above 0.80 for all of the scales, indicating good internal consistency (Table 2). Survey items and standardized factor loadings for the final correlated four-factor model are shown in Table 2.

Table 1.

Measurement model development and validation

Model developmentχ2DFSCFPCFIRMSEA (90% CI)Notes
First random half of sample (n = 2,598) 
 All 35 items (8 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism) 5210.653 554 1.4267 <0.001 0.883 0.057 (0.055—0.058) Dropped “goben” cross-loaded with self-efficacy 
 7 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism 4906.018 521 1.4136 <0.001 0.885 0.057 (0.055—0.058) Dropped “gosafe” cross-loaded with barriers 
 6 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism 4617.664 489 1.4016 <0.001 0.889 0.057 (0.056—0.059) Added 3 correlated errors 
 6 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism + 3 correlated errors 2943.515 486 1.3916 <0.001 0.934 0.044 (0.043—0.046) Final model 
Model validation χ2 DF SCF P CFI RMSEA (90% CI)  
Second random half of sample (n = 2,595) 3034.448 486 1.3823 <0.001 0.931 0.045 (0.043—0.046)  
Full baseline sample (n = 5,193) 4885.284 486 1.400 <0.001 0.933 0.044 (0.043—0.045)  
Model developmentχ2DFSCFPCFIRMSEA (90% CI)Notes
First random half of sample (n = 2,598) 
 All 35 items (8 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism) 5210.653 554 1.4267 <0.001 0.883 0.057 (0.055—0.058) Dropped “goben” cross-loaded with self-efficacy 
 7 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism 4906.018 521 1.4136 <0.001 0.885 0.057 (0.055—0.058) Dropped “gosafe” cross-loaded with barriers 
 6 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism 4617.664 489 1.4016 <0.001 0.889 0.057 (0.056—0.059) Added 3 correlated errors 
 6 benefits + 11 barriers + 10 self-efficacy + 6 optimism + 3 correlated errors 2943.515 486 1.3916 <0.001 0.934 0.044 (0.043—0.046) Final model 
Model validation χ2 DF SCF P CFI RMSEA (90% CI)  
Second random half of sample (n = 2,595) 3034.448 486 1.3823 <0.001 0.931 0.045 (0.043—0.046)  
Full baseline sample (n = 5,193) 4885.284 486 1.400 <0.001 0.933 0.044 (0.043—0.045)  

Abbreviations: CFI, comparative fit index; DF, degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; SCF, scaling correction factor; 90% CI, 90% confidence interval.

Table 2.

Survey items and standardized factor loadings for the final correlated four-factor model using full baseline sample (n = 5,193)

Survey itemαβ
Barriers: In the future, I would NOT WANT to get tested for colon cancer because… 0.862  
 the test might find something wrong  0.584 
 it is too embarrassing  0.737 
 it is inconvenient or too hard to schedule  0.652 
 the stool blood test might be disgusting  0.659 
 a special diet or emptying my colon is too much trouble  0.650 
 it might be painful  0.713 
 I do not have symptoms  0.530 
 it is too expensive  0.539a 
 there is no one to drive me home from the test  0.494 
 it would be embarrassing to talk to my doctor about screening  0.677 
 I do not have insurance or the copay is too high  0.422a 
Benefits: In the future, I would WANT to get tested for colon cancer because… 0.878  
 finding cancer early gives me a better chance at a cure  0.860 
 receiving clear findings would give me peace of mind  0.825 
 screening can find cancer early  0.896 
 my family would be happy if I got screened  0.541 
 getting screened is part of taking care of myself  0.819 
 if polyps are found and removed, cancer can be prevented  0.610 
Self-efficacy: How confident are you that you can… 0.964  
 make a decision about whether to get screened for colon cancer  0.646 
 complete colon cancer screening  0.869 
 complete colon cancer screening, even if you are nervous about it  0.912b 
 complete colon cancer screening, even if you are embarrassed about it  0.904b 
 complete colon cancer screening, even if you don't think you need it  0.890 
 find time to complete colon cancer screening  0.893 
 talk to your doctor about colon cancer screening  0.855 
 complete any necessary preparation for colon cancer screening  0.902 
 get support from family and friends to help you complete colon cancer screening  0.733 
 complete colon cancer screening even if you think your health is good  0.912 
Outlook 0.822  
 In uncertain times, I usually expect the best  0.489c 
 If something can go wrong for me, it will  −0.698 
 I'm always optimistic about the future  0.480c 
 I hardly ever expect things to go my way  −0.829 
 I rarely count on good things happening to me  −0.739 
 Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad  0.581 
Survey itemαβ
Barriers: In the future, I would NOT WANT to get tested for colon cancer because… 0.862  
 the test might find something wrong  0.584 
 it is too embarrassing  0.737 
 it is inconvenient or too hard to schedule  0.652 
 the stool blood test might be disgusting  0.659 
 a special diet or emptying my colon is too much trouble  0.650 
 it might be painful  0.713 
 I do not have symptoms  0.530 
 it is too expensive  0.539a 
 there is no one to drive me home from the test  0.494 
 it would be embarrassing to talk to my doctor about screening  0.677 
 I do not have insurance or the copay is too high  0.422a 
Benefits: In the future, I would WANT to get tested for colon cancer because… 0.878  
 finding cancer early gives me a better chance at a cure  0.860 
 receiving clear findings would give me peace of mind  0.825 
 screening can find cancer early  0.896 
 my family would be happy if I got screened  0.541 
 getting screened is part of taking care of myself  0.819 
 if polyps are found and removed, cancer can be prevented  0.610 
Self-efficacy: How confident are you that you can… 0.964  
 make a decision about whether to get screened for colon cancer  0.646 
 complete colon cancer screening  0.869 
 complete colon cancer screening, even if you are nervous about it  0.912b 
 complete colon cancer screening, even if you are embarrassed about it  0.904b 
 complete colon cancer screening, even if you don't think you need it  0.890 
 find time to complete colon cancer screening  0.893 
 talk to your doctor about colon cancer screening  0.855 
 complete any necessary preparation for colon cancer screening  0.902 
 get support from family and friends to help you complete colon cancer screening  0.733 
 complete colon cancer screening even if you think your health is good  0.912 
Outlook 0.822  
 In uncertain times, I usually expect the best  0.489c 
 If something can go wrong for me, it will  −0.698 
 I'm always optimistic about the future  0.480c 
 I hardly ever expect things to go my way  −0.829 
 I rarely count on good things happening to me  −0.739 
 Overall, I expect more good things to happen to me than bad  0.581 

NOTE: All factors are correlated (P < 0.001): Barriers-Benefits, −0.203; Barriers–Self-Efficacy, −0.360; Barriers-Optimism, −0.308; Benefits–Self-Efficacy, 0.377; Benefits-Optimism, 0.116; Self-Efficacy–Optimism, 0.190. Factor loadings with the same subscript indicate items with significant error covariances (P < 0.001). Factor loadings in bolded text were not invariant across currently screened and never screened subgroups.

Measurement invariance

The configural models for the three screening subgroups showed acceptable fit (Table 3, single-group confirmatory factor analysis). Invariance was observed when constraining factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual item variance and covariance for participants that were overdue or never screened, indicating strict measurement invariance (Table 3, never screened vs. overdue). When comparing the currently screened and overdue subgroups, measurement invariance was supported when constraining the factor loadings only (i.e., metric invariance; Table 3, currently screened vs. overdue). The measurement model was not invariant across the currently screened and never screened subgroups (Table 3, currently screened vs. never screened). We conducted additional invariance testing that adjusted for sociodemographic variables that were modestly different between current screeners and never screeners, but this did not result in any significantly different findings (data not shown).

Table 3.

Results of the single-group and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for the three screening subgroups (n = 5,193)

Results of the single-group and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for the three screening subgroups (n = 5,193)
Results of the single-group and multi-group confirmatory factor analysis for the three screening subgroups (n = 5,193)

When we further examined the invariance of factor loadings of individual scales and items among current screeners and never screeners, only the factor loadings for the benefits scale were invariant (P = 0.066, data not shown). Although all item factor loadings ran in the same direction and were significantly different from zero, six barrier, two self-efficacy, and three optimism items were not equivalent between current screeners and never screeners (Table 2). These items were generally stronger indicators (i.e., larger factor loadings) of their respective construct for participants that were currently screened.

Our results extend support for the factorial validity of previously published scales of CRCS benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy by including a subgroup that was currently screened. We also demonstrated evidence of factorial validity by replicating the measurement model in two random samples of our study population, as well as the full sample.

In addition, our study provides evidence of construct validity for an optimism/outlook scale. Researchers have previously hypothesized that dispositional optimism may overlap conceptually with self-efficacy (18), but our findings suggest that optimism is a distinct construct. Although both constructs have strong overtones of expecting a desired outcome, self-efficacy is often considered a state that is situational in relation to a specific behavior, whereas optimism may be considered a trait that is more stable across situations. This was reflected in our measures of the two constructs: the optimism scale was general in nature and the self-efficacy was specific to CRCS behavior. Self-efficacy and optimism were also modestly correlated in this study, which further supports their independence. Two recent reports found that dispositional optimism may moderate the influence of colorectal cancer worry and comparative risk on screening behavior (30, 31). Future research should examine how trait optimism may affect CRCS decision-making and whether optimism moderates the influence of CRCS perceptions and attitudes on behavior.

There are several implications of our findings. First, our study demonstrates invariance of factor loadings, item intercepts, and residual item variance and covariance (i.e., strict measurement invariance) when comparing subgroups that were never screened and overdue, as well as invariance of factor loadings (i.e., metric invariance) for all scales between the currently screened and overdue subgroups. Our finding of strict measurement invariance provides the necessary support for comparing the psychosocial characteristics of individuals with no CRCS experience and those that are overdue for screening. Strict measurement invariance is largely neglected in applied measurement practice (13, 26), yet is critical to establishing measures that can be used in diverse populations. We have provided evidence that all measures of CRCS benefits, barriers, self-efficacy, and dispositional optimism work well for those currently nonadherent to screening recommendations and eligible for intervention. Thus, our scales may be especially useful for intervention studies, which generally restrict eligibility to include overdue and never screened individuals.

Second, when comparing the most extreme subgroups, currently screened vs. never screened, only the factor loadings for perceived benefits were invariant. There is no consensus regarding a best approach to improve scales lacking invariance (14, 32); however, there are some recommendations that may be useful. For example, qualitative research could be used to identify barriers that are more important or salient to persons who have recently undergone screening compared with those who have never been screened or are overdue. In fact, previous research examining barriers to screening cited by current screeners and never screeners suggests that there may be important differences in how these two groups perceive CRCS barriers. Current screeners more often cite barriers associated with the screening test itself (e.g., fear of pain, dislike of prep solution), while never screeners are more likely to describe scheduling barriers (e.g., difficulty making an appointment, wait time; ref. 33). In a mixed methods study, Jones and colleagues (34) found that focus group participants that had been screened were more likely to cite pain, discomfort, and trouble with anesthesia as barriers to screening compared with never screeners. A similar study that asked patients in primary care clinics to rank order barriers to CRCS also reported that respondents who had never been screened ranked time as a more important barrier compared to those up-to-date with screening (35). This is consistent with our finding that, compared with current screeners, survey respondents that had never been screened had lower factor loadings on items that measured barriers related to costs and experience.

Another option for improving invariance is to use a smaller subset of items found to be invariant across groups. In our study, the benefits scale was invariant among current screeners and never screeners. These and other invariant items may be used to compare mean scores across groups currently and never screened. Although this may prove to be a versatile approach in improving scales lacking invariance, the content validity may be reduced when only a few items are used. Finally, researchers may also take into account considerations other than statistical tests. For example, the statistical differences observed in the size of the factor loadings across groups in our study may be due to the large sample size and may not be substantive.

In summary, our study contributes to the literature that examines construct and factorial validity of psychosocial scales related to CRCS. This is especially relevant in light of recent calls for developing greater consensus about theoretical constructs used in health promotion studies. Our measures of perceived benefits/pros, perceived barriers/cons, self-efficacy, and optimism/outlook are appropriate for comparing current screeners vs. overdue and overdue vs. never screeners, and may be used to specify intervention targets and effectively assess change pre- and post-intervention across these groups. These scales should be examined in other studies of diverse populations. Further research using focus groups or cognitive interviews may also refine scales that measure barriers among current screeners and never screeners.

No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Conception and design: C.C. Murphy, A. McQueen, L.K. Bartholomew, D.J. Del Junco, S.W. Vernon

Development of methodology: C.C. Murphy, A. McQueen, S.W. Vernon

Acquisition of data (provided animals, acquired and managed patients, provided facilities, etc.): S.W. Vernon

Analysis and interpretation of data (e.g., statistical analysis, biostatistics, computational analysis): C.C. Murphy, A. McQueen, D.J. Del Junco, S.W. Vernon

Writing, review, and/or revision of the manuscript: C.C. Murphy, A. McQueen, L.K. Bartholomew, D.J. Del Junco, S.P. Coan, S.W. Vernon

Administrative, technical, or material support (i.e., reporting or organizing data, constructing databases): S.P. Coan

Study supervision: S.W. Vernon

This study was supported by National Cancer Institute Grant R01 CA112223, Initiation of Colon Cancer Screening in Veterans (to S.W. Vernon, C.C. Murphy, S.P. Coan, D.J. del Junco, L.K. Bartholomew) and R21 CA164544, Validation of the IPQ-R Adapted for Colorectal Cancer Risk (to A. McQueen), and American Cancer Society Mentored Research Scholar Grant CPPB-113766 (to A. McQueen).

The costs of publication of this article were defrayed in part by the payment of page charges. This article must therefore be hereby marked advertisement in accordance with 18 U.S.C. Section 1734 solely to indicate this fact.

1.
Vernon
SW
,
McQueen
A
. 
Colorectal Cancer Screening
. In:
Holland
JC
,
Breitbart
WS
,
Jacobsen
PB
,
Lederberg
MS
,
Loscalzo
MJ
,
McCorkle
R
, editors. 
Psycho-Oncology
, 2nd edition.
New York, NY
:
Oxford University Press
; 
2010
.
p.
71
83
.
2.
McQueen
A
,
Vernon
SW
,
Myers
RE
,
Watts
BG
,
Lee
ES
,
Tilley
BC
. 
Correlates and predictors of colorectal cancer screening among male automotive workers
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2007
;
16
:
500
9
.
3.
Sabatino
SA
,
Lawrence
B
,
Elder
R
,
Mercer
SL
,
Wilson
KM
,
DeVinney
B
, et al
Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services
.
Am J Prev Med
2012
;
43
:
97
118
.
4.
Institute of Medicine
. 
Speaking of Health: Assessing Health Communication Strategies for Diverse Populations
.
Washington, DC
:
The National Academies Press
; 
2002
:
28
75
.
5.
Noar
SM
,
Zimmerman
RS
. 
Health behavior theory and cumulative knowledge regarding health behaviors: are we moving in the right direction?
Health Educ Res
2005
;
20
:
275
90
.
6.
Weinstein
ND
,
Rothman
AJ
. 
Commentary: revitalizing research on health behavior theories
.
Health Educ Res
2005
;
20
:
294
7
.
7.
Grid-Enabled Measures (GEM)
.
National Cancer Institute
. https://www.gem-beta.org.
8.
Vernon
SW
,
Myers
RE
,
Tilley
BC
. 
Development and validation of an instrument to measure factors related to colorectal cancer screening adherence
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
1997
;
6
:
825
32
.
9.
Rawl
S
,
Champion
V
,
Menon
U
,
Loehrer
PJ
,
Vance
GH
,
Skinner
CS
. 
Validation of scales to measure benefits of and barriers to colorectal cancer screening
.
J Psychosoc Oncol
2001
;
19
:
47
63
.
10.
Tiro
JA
,
Vernon
SW
,
Hyslop
T
,
Myers
RE
. 
Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening among African Americans and Caucasians
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2005
;
14
:
2855
61
.
11.
Ritvo
P
,
Myers
R
,
Del Giudice
ML
,
Pazsat
L
,
Campbell
PT
,
Howlett
RI
, et al
Factorial validity and invariance of a survey measuring psychosocial correlates of colorectal cancer screening in Ontario, Canada—a replication study
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:
3279
83
.
12.
McQueen
A
,
Tiro
JA
,
Vernon
SW
. 
Construct validity and invariance of four factors associated with colorectal cancer screening across gender, race, and prior screening
.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev
2008
;
17
:
2231
7
.
13.
Wu
AD
,
Li
Z
,
Zumbo
BD
. 
Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: a demonstration with TIMSS data
.
Pract Assess Res Eval
2007
;
12
:
1
26
.
14.
Vandenberg
RJ
,
Lance
CE
. 
A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research
.
Organ Res Method
2000
;
3
:
4
70
.
15.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
. 
Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement
.
Ann Intern Med
2008
;
149
:
627
37
.
16.
Levin
B
,
Lieberman
DA
,
McFarland
B
,
Smith
RA
,
Brooks
D
,
Andrews
KS
, et al
Screening and surveillance for the early detection of colorectal cancer and adenomatous polyps, 2008: a joint guideline from the American Cancer Society, the US Multi-Society Task Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College of Radiology
.
CA Cancer J Clin
2008
;
58
:
130
60
.
17.
Vernon
SW
,
Bartholomew
LK
,
McQueen
A
,
Bettencourt
JL
,
Greisinger
A
,
Coan
SP
, et al
A randomized controlled trial of a tailored interactive computer-delivered intervention to promote colorectal cancer screening: sometimes more is just the same
.
Ann Behav Med
2011
;
41
:
284
99
.
18.
Scheier
MF
,
Carver
CS
,
Bridges
MW
. 
Optimism, pessimism, and psychological well-being
. In:
Chang
EC
, editor. 
Optimism and pessimism: implications for theory, research and practice
.
Washington, DC
:
American Psychological Association
; 
2000
.
p.
189
216
.
19.
McQueen
A
,
Vernon
SW
,
Swank
PR
. 
Construct definition and scale development for defensive information processing: an application to colorectal cancer screening
.
Health Psychol
2013
;
32
:
190
202
.
20.
Scheier
MF
,
Carver
CS
,
Bridges
MW
. 
Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test
.
J Pers Soc Psychol
1994
;
67
:
1063
78
.
21.
Muthén
LK
,
Muthén
BO
. 
Mplus 7.0
. 7th ed, 
2012
.
Los Angeles, CA
:
Muthén & Muthén
.
22.
Ender
CK
,
Bandalos
DL
. 
The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models
.
Struct Equation Model
2001
;
8
:
430
57
.
23.
Schafer
JL
,
Graham
JW
. 
Missing data: our view of the state of the art
.
Psychol Methods
2002
;
7
:
147
77
.
24.
Hu
LH
,
Bentler
PM
,
Hoyle
RH
. 
Evaluating model fit
. 
Structural equation modeling
.
Thousand Oaks, CA
:
Sage
; 
1995
.
p.
76
99
.
25.
Hu
LH
,
Bentler
PM
. 
Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives
.
Struct Equation Model
1999
;
6
:
1
55
.
26.
Dimitrov
DM
. 
Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation
.
Meas Eval Counsel Dev
2010
;
43
:
121
49
.
27.
Satorra
A
,
Bentler
PM
. 
Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis
. In:
Von Eye
A
,
Clogg
CC
, editors. 
Latent variable analysis: applications for development research
.
Thousand Oaks, CA
:
Sage
; 
1994
.
p.
399
519
.
28.
Satorra
A
,
Bentler
PM
. 
A scaled difference χ2 test statistic for moment structure analysis
.
Pyschometrika
2001
;
66
:
507
14
.
29.
Cortina
JM
. 
What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications
.
J Appl Psych
1993
;
78
:
98
104
.
30.
Han
PK
,
Klein
WM
,
Killam
B
,
Lehman
T
,
Massett
H
,
Freedman
AN
. 
Representing randomness in the communication of individualized cancer risk estimates: effects on cancer risk perceptions, worry, and subjective uncertainty about risk
.
Patient Educ Couns
2012
;
86
:
106
13
.
31.
Han
PK
,
Klein
WM
,
Lehman
T
,
Killam
B
,
Massett
H
,
Freedman
AN
. 
Communication of uncertainty regarding individualized cancer risk estimates: effects and influential factors
.
Med Decis Making
2011
;
31
:
354
66
.
32.
Gregorich
SE
. 
Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework
.
Med Care
2006
;
44
:
S78
94
.
33.
Jones
RM
,
Woolf
SH
,
Cunningham
TD
,
Johnson
RE
,
Krist
AH
,
Rothemich
SF
, et al
The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening
.
Am J Prev Med
2010
;
38
:
499
507
.
34.
Jones
RM
,
Devers
KJ
,
Kuzel
AJ
,
Woolf
SH
. 
Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a mixed-methods analysis
.
Am J Prev Med
2010
;
38
:
508
16
.
35.
Medina
GG
,
McQueen
A
,
Greisinger
AJ
,
Bartholomew
LK
,
Vernon
SW
. 
What would make getting colorectal cancer screening easier? Perspectives from screeners and nonscreeners
.
Gastroenterol Res Pract
2012
;
2012
:
895807
.