The literature including correlates of parental distress as related to childhood cancer is abundant. It is important to identify predictive factors and outcomes of this distress in parents. The objective of this review was to update previous syntheses on factors of distress and to identify outcomes of parents’ distress in the recent literature (2007–2012). We performed a systematic review to identify all quantitative studies including measures of parental distress and associated factors during the study period. We found 56 eligible studies, of which 43 had a Low risk of bias (Cochrane guidelines). Forty‐two reports included potential predictive factors. Significant relationships were found with clinical history of the child, sex of the parent, coping response and personal resources, pre‐diagnosis family functioning, but not education/income or marital status. Twenty‐five reports studied potential consequences of distress and focused on psychological adjustment in parents and children. Compared to past periods, a higher proportion of studies included fathers. Measures used to evaluate distress were also more homogeneous in certain domains of distress. This review underscores the need for appropriate methods for selecting participants and reporting results in future studies. Appropriate methods should be used to demonstrate causality between factors/consequences and distress.

ObjectiveParents report psychological distress in association with their child's cancer. Reliable tools are needed to screen parental distress over the cancer trajectory. This study aimed to estimate the stability and repeatability of the Distress Thermometer (DT) and the Depression and Anxiety items of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-revised (ESAS-r-D; -A) in parents of children diagnosed with cancer.MethodsFifty parents (28 mothers, median age = 44) of clinically stable survivors of childhood solid and brain tumours completed questionnaires about their own distress (DT, ESAS-r-D; -A, Brief Symptom Inventory-18: BSI-18, Patient Health Questionnaire-9: PHQ-9, Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7: GAD-7) and their children’s quality of life (QoL; Peds Quality of Life: PedsQL) twice, with a month interval between the two assessments. At retest, parents also evaluated life events that occurred between the two time points. Hierarchical regressions explored moderators for the temporal stability of test measures.ResultsStability estimates were ICC = .78 for the DT, .55 for the ESAS-r-D, and .47 for the ESAS-r-A. Caseness agreement between test and retest was substantial for the DT, fair for the ESAS-r-D, and slight for the ESAS-r-A. Repeatability analyses indicated that the error range for the DT was more than 2 pts below/above actual measurement, whereas it was more than 3 pts for the ESAS-r-A, and 2.5 for the ESAS-r-D. Instability of the DT could be explained by changes in children’s physical QoL, but not by other components of QoL or life events. No moderators of stability could be identified for the ESAS-r items.ConclusionsThe DT appears to be a fairly stable measure when the respondent's condition is stable yet with a relatively wide error range. Fluctuations in distress-related constructs may affect the temporal stability of the DT. The lower stability of ESAS-r items may result from shorter time-lapse instructions resulting in a greater sensitivity to change. Findings support future research on the DT as a reliable instrument in caregivers.

This study provides validity evidence for the Capture-Recapture (CR) method, borrowed from ecology, as a measure of second language (L2) productive vocabulary size (PVS). Two separate “captures” of productive vocabulary were taken using written word association tasks (WAT). At Time 1, 47 bilinguals provided at least 4 associates to each of 30 high-frequency stimulus words in English, their first language (L1), and in French, their L2. A few days later (Time 2), this procedure was repeated with a different set of stimulus words in each language. Since the WAT was used, both Lex30 and CR PVS scores were calculated in each language. Participants also completed an animacy judgment task assessing the speed and efficiency of lexical access. Results indicated that, in both languages, CR and Lex30 scores were significantly positively correlated (evidence of convergent validity). CR scores were also significantly larger in the L1, and correlated significantly with the speed of lexical access in the L2 (evidence of construct validity). These results point to the validity of the technique for estimating relative L2 PVS. However, CR scores are not a direct indication of absolute vocabulary size. A discussion of the method’s underlying assumptions and their implications for interpretation are provided.