Self-efficacy for coping with cancer: Revision of the Cancer Behavior Inventory (Version 3.0).

Abstract

Based on self-regulation and self-efficacy theories, the Cancer Behavior Inventory (CBI; Heitzmann et al., 2011; Merluzzi & Martinez Sanchez, 1997; Merluzzi, Nairn, Hegde, Martinez Sanchez, & Dunn, 2001) was developed as a measure of self-efficacy strategies for coping with cancer. In the latest revision, CBI-V3.0, a number of psychometric and empirical advances were made: (a) the reading level was reduced to 6th-grade level; (b) individual interviews and focus groups were used to revise items; (c) a new spiritual coping subscale was added; (d) data were collected from 4 samples (total N = 1,405) to conduct an exploratory factor analysis with targeted rotation, 2 confirmatory factor analyses, and differential item functioning; (e) item trimming was used to reduce the total number to 27; (f) internal consistency and test-retest reliability were computed; and (g) extensive validity testing was conducted. The results, which build upon the strengths of prior versions, confirm a structurally and psychometrically sound and unbiased measure of self-efficacy strategies for coping with cancer with a reduced number of items for ease of administration. The factors include Maintaining Activity and Independence, Seeking and Understanding Medical Information, Emotion Regulation, Coping With Treatment Related Side Effects, Accepting Cancer/Maintaining a Positive Attitude, Seeking Social Support, and Using Spiritual Coping. Internal consistency (α = .946), test-retest reliability (r = .890; 4 months), and validity coefficients with a variety of relevant measures indicated strong psychometric properties. The new 27-item CBI-V3.0 has both research utility and clinical utility as a screening and treatment-planning measure of self-efficacy strategies for coping with cancer. (PsycINFO Database Record

The influence of self-efficacy and resilient coping on cancer patients’ quality of life

“…Both resource scales used in this study, the GSES and the BRCS, are not specific for patients suffering from a certain disease. Disease‐specific scales such as the Resilience Scale RS‐SC (Ye et al, ) or the revised Cancer Behavior Inventory measuring self‐efficacy in cancer patients (Merluzzi et al, ) could perhaps be more precise in the prognosis of disease‐specific QoL outcomes. However, comparisons with the general population are not possible with these scales, and comparisons with other patient groups beyond cancer are also problematic which strongly limits the generalisability of the findings.…”

Social relationship coping efficacy: A new construct in understanding social support and close personal relationships in persons with cancer

“…Validity analyses of the SRCE scale were conducted using total scores and subscale scores from a variety of well‐established measures, including measures of social support and support seeking ( Inventory of Socially Supportive Behaviors , Cancer Behavior Inventory ), coping ( Brief COPE Scale , Distress Screening Schedule , Cancer Behavior Inventory ), psychological distress and emotional well‐being ( Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale , Center for Epidemiologic Studies‐Depression , Distress Screening Schedule , FACT‐Quality of Life ), social well‐being ( Psychosocial Adjustment to Illness Scale , FACT‐Quality of Life ), and functional capacity/well‐being ( FACT‐Quality of Life , Sickness Impact Profile , Distress Screening Schedule ). The Distress Screening Schedule assesses distress (depression and anxiety) as well as functional capacity, social support, coping, and satisfaction with health care.…”

Being in safe hands: Patients’ perceptions of how cancer services may support psychological well‐being

“…improved well-being (Hopman & Rijken, 2015;Merluzzi et al, 2017;Ng, Mohamed, Sulaiman, & Zainal, 2017).…”

“…This has typically focused on diagnosis and the early treatment period and has been informed by coping models that incorporate an appraisal process e.g., Lazarus and Folkman's Transactional Model of Stress and Coping (Ahadi, Delavar, & Rostami, ; Hulbert‐Williams, Morrison, Wilkinson, & Neal, ; Laubmeier & Zakowski, ). Whilst acknowledging that coping is a dynamic process which varies over time and in response to different stressors, these studies highlight a range of active coping strategies consistently associated with reduced psychological distress and improved well‐being (Hopman & Rijken, ; Merluzzi et al., ; Ng, Mohamed, Sulaiman, & Zainal, ).…”