Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online: 101
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page

 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 177-186

Adaptation of the Sexuality Scale for Women with Gynecologic Cancer for Turkish Patients


1 Department of Rheumatology, Ibni Sina Hospital, Ankara University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey
2 Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Ankara University, Ankara, Turkey

Date of Submission19-May-2018
Date of Acceptance23-Jul-2018
Date of Web Publication09-Nov-2018

Correspondence Address:
Ayten Demir
Department of Nursing, Faculty of Nursing, Ankara University, Ankara
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/apjon.apjon_49_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Objective: Diagnosis and treatment of gynecologic cancers can have a negative impact on sexuality. Identification of sexual problems and concerns is key to enable appropriate management. Therefore, there is a need for a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the sexuality of patients. This study aimed to adapt the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer for Turkish patients with gynecologic cancer. Methods: A cross-sectional study of 150 volunteer patients with gynecologic cancer was undertaken in Turkey. The patients completed a semi-structured demographic data form and the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer. We assessed the reliability, language accuracy, and content and construct validities of the Turkish version of the scale. Results: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed that the scale had four factors. In the exploratory factor analysis, seven items were discarded from the scale because their load values were <0.3. In the confirmatory factor analysis, the coefficients were higher than 0.3. The total Cronbach's α was 0.72. Conclusions: The sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer (Turkish version) is a valid and reliable instrument for evaluating the sexuality of Turkish patients with gynecologic cancer.

Keywords: Gynecologic cancers, reliability, sexual life, sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer, validity


How to cite this article:
Marangoz &, Demir A, Yazgan E&. Adaptation of the Sexuality Scale for Women with Gynecologic Cancer for Turkish Patients. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs 2019;6:177-86

How to cite this URL:
Marangoz &, Demir A, Yazgan E&. Adaptation of the Sexuality Scale for Women with Gynecologic Cancer for Turkish Patients. Asia Pac J Oncol Nurs [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Apr 24];6:177-86. Available from: http://www.apjon.org/text.asp?2019/6/2/177/245159


  Introduction Top


Gynecologic cancers are among three of the seven most common cancers among women worldwide.[1],[2] In 2014, 12% of newly diagnosed cancers among women in the USA are gynecologic cancers.[3] Ovarian and cervical cancers in the USA account for over 1.3% and 0.7% of all newly diagnosed cancers, respectively.[4],[5] In Turkey, uterine corpus cancer is the fifth most common cancer; ovarian cancer, seventh; and uterine cervical cancer, tenth.[6] Gynecologic cancers worsen the quality of life and the sexual life of an individual.[7]

The World Health Organization[8] describes sexuality as one of the significant factors in human life, covering identity, role, sexual preference, eroticism, pleasure, closeness, and reproduction. Sexual intercourse and sex are among the important factors of daily living. Sexuality is a common factor involving touch and closeness, while sex is defined as an activity/action with a partner.[9] Sexual health is a wide area, which covers the social, physical, and psychological aspects of an individual. The health of an individual is, except in some diseases, closely related to interpersonal relationships, education, environment, experience, and self-esteem.[10] Developmental stages, cultural values, and experiences affect sexual expression. The approaches, behavior, values, and outfit styles reflect the sexuality of an individual.[11] In many cultures, such as Chinese, Filipino, and Cambodian, sex is taboo.[12] Similarly, Turkish families perceive sex as a taboo and expect the first intercourse to happen only after marriage.[13]

Cancer causes more serious sexual problems than other diseases.[7] Approximately 10%–90% of the patients with cancer experience problems in their sexual life.[14] Gynecologic cancers worsen the body image,[15],[16],[17] mother and partner roles,[18] and the interpersonal relationships of the patients during therapy.[15] Moreover, vaginal dryness, vaginal insensitivity, indifference for sex, unhappiness after sex, dyspareunia during intercourse, no orgasm, bleeding during intercourse, shortened vagina, infertility, warmness, urinary tract infections, and sudden emotional changes can be experienced.[19],[20]

Shame is the biggest hindrance to sexual care. Another hindrance is the lack of education among health professionals.[21],[22],[23] Because of these factors, health professionals fail to evaluate the sexuality of patients and consequently diagnose and manage their sexual problems.[24] Nurses, who spend more time with patients than other health professionals, have the primary role of evaluating the sexual life of patients. Collecting accurate information from the patients is dependent on the trust established between the nurses and the patients, considering that sex is a difficult topic for both health professionals and patients to talk about. Besides collecting sexual information from patients, nurses must also apply appropriate nursing practice for that sexual problems that they encounter.[7] There are many scales used worldwide for sexual life appraisal. Most scale items evaluate sexual actions and functions.[25] There are existing tools that assess the sexual function (e.g., desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, satisfaction, and pain) of Turkish patients with cancer.[26],[27] However, no scale has been reported to evaluate the sexual life of patients with cancer in general until date. Therefore, we adapted the sexuality scale for Women with gynecologic cancer[28] for Turkish patients with gynecologic cancer to determine whether it can systematically evaluate the sexual life of patients in general, including their body image, role and relationship issues, and sexual function and activities.

Sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer

The scale was developed by Zeng et al.,[28] who examined the sexual lives of 156 women with gynecologic cancer in mainland China. They found 20 items that were reliable and valid for sexual activity, sexual function, and additional issue subunits. The total Cronbach's α was 0.83; the Cronbach's α was 0.74 for sexual activities, 0.77 for sexual functions, and 0.86 for additional issues. Four-factor structures, obtained via exploratory factor analysis (EFA), were used to determine the construct validity, which explained 69% of the variance. Their results indicated the validity, reliability, and reflection of obstruction in the sexual issues when higher points were marked on the scale.[28]

However, the original scale [Appendix] provided by the authors contained 32 items and five subscales: body image (five items), role and relationship issues (five items), sexual activities (five items), sexual function (10 items), and additional issues to compare the conditions before and after cancer development (seven items, [Table 1]). We omitted the additional issues based on an expert's advice. The scale is a four-point Likert scale, and the scale questions measure participants' sexual activity for the last month. The responses for the body image subscale were scored as follows: definitely agree, 4; agree, 3; disagree, 2; and definitely disagree, 1. Those for the role and relationship issue, sexual activity, sexual function, and additional issue subscales were scored as follows: very much, 4; somewhat, 3; a little, 2; and not at all, 1. The number of sexual intercourse during sexual activities was assessed as follows: >4 times, 4; 3–4 times, 3; 1–2 times, 2; and none, 1.

Table 1: Overall characteristics of patients

Click here to view


This study aimed to determine the validity and reliability of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer[28] after adaptation for use in Turkish patients.


  Methods Top


The study had two parts. First, the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer was translated into the Turkish language. Second, the psychometric properties were determined.

Phase 1: Translation and adaptation of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer into the Turkish Language

Language validity-translation

The back translation method was undertaken by three independent professional expert interpreters to validate the language for the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer. Three professional Turkish-English bilingual interpreters translated the scale into the Turkish language; thereafter, we formed a Turkish version with the most appropriate terms. A linguist, an oncologist, and an English native speaker, who is an English-Turkish interpreter, retranslated the scale into the English language. We observed no difference between the original English and retranslated versions.[29],[30],[31]

Content validity

We consulted 10 individuals regarding the Turkish version of the scale. These individuals included two experienced oncology nurses, a family physician, a psychologist, two Turkish linguistics, two oncologists, and two gynecologic oncologists.[29] These experts evaluated each item for openness, clearness, simplicity, and proper use of language by a four-point Likert scale (1 point: Inappropriate; 2 points: Appropriate but requires small modifications; 3 points: Appropriate; and 4 points: Very appropriate).[32] The content validity index (CVI) was used to estimate the validity of the items. A CVI with 3 or 4 points indicates that the content is valid and consistent with the conceptual framework.[33] Seven items in the draft of this scale were deemed invalid because they yielded CVIs of 0.50 (5/10) to 0.70 (7/10) and were then removed from the questionnaire. All the remaining items were valid with CVIs ranging from 0.80 (8/10) to 1.00 (10/10) and were then retained.

Phase 2: Psychometric properties of the Turkish version of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer

Study design and samples

We conducted a cross-sectional, descriptive study in four hospitals: Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Hacettepe University Hospital, Ankara University Medical Faculty Cebeci and İbni Sina Hospitals. The study was conducted in medical oncology and gynecology clinics and outpatient chemotherapy units of these hospitals. We included patients with primary diagnoses of ovarian, endometrial, cervical, vulvar, vaginal, and  Fallopian tube More Details cancers; who were older than 17 years and sexually active; who completed first-line therapy (or first cure if on chemotherapy or 1 month after radiotherapy or 3 months after surgery); not in the terminal stage; who were literate and neurologically or psychiatrically normal for filling out the survey; and who volunteered to participate in the study and signed the written informed consent form. We calculated the sample size based on the item numbers and surveyed 150 patients in total, six for each item.[34]

Instruments

We collected data (including age, education, income, and profession, as well as primary diagnosis, cancer stage, and previously completed therapies) using a semi-structured demographic data form and the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer (Turkish version) as adapted in Phase 1.

Pilot study

We conducted a pilot study on 15 patients and asked them if they could read and understand the scale. The scale was then modified and finalized in accordance with their recommendations.

Data collection

We collected data from eligible patients in gynecologic oncology and medical oncology clinics and outpatient chemotherapy units in two universities and a state hospital from April 2013 to February 2014. We obtained the demographic and medical data from the patients' files and pathology reports. The patients completed the self-administered sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer (Turkish version). Each patient took approximately 15 min to complete the questionnaire.

We retested the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer on approximately 27% (n = 40) of the patients at 2 weeks[35],[36] and on the volunteer patients.

Statistical analysis

We analyzed the data using the SPSSIBM® (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences for Windows), version 22.0 (IBM, Armonk, NY, USA). We used numbers, percentages, means, standard deviations, and minimum and maximum values to present the demographic data.[37] For the validity of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer, we assessed the language, content, and construct validities: internal consistency and time-wise consistency for reliability analyses; back translation for language validity; CVIs for content validity; and EFA and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) findings for construct validity. We applied an EFA since we used the original scale developed by Zeng et al.,[28] We tested the sampling for the factor analysis using the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) measure of sampling adequacy and Bartlett's test of sphericity; the varimax rotation technique was used for the EFA.[36],[38]

The statistical procedures for the CFA were conducted using the LISREL 8.80 program.[39] The CFA model was tested using the maximum likelihood estimates.[40] In the CFA, the goodness of fit of the model was evaluated using multiple criteria. We used Cronbach's α for internal consistency and product moment correlation coefficient for retest.[36],[41]

Ethical approval

We obtained (1) permission from its authors to adapt the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer in Turkish patients, (2) approval from the ethics committee of Ankara University, and (3) written permissions from Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Hacettepe University Hospital, and Ankara University Medical Faculty Hospital. Finally, we obtained written informed consent from the patients after explaining the details of the study and assured them of their anonymity.


  Results Top


Sociodemographic characteristics

The patients in the study were aged 52.19 ± 8.08 years and comprised as follows: 52% elementary-level individuals, 84.7% of housewives, and 96% of menopausal women. Approximately 66% had ovarian cancer; 21.3%, endometrial cancer; and 12.7%, cervical cancer; 64.0% were in the third stage of the disease. Further, 67.3% underwent surgery with chemotherapy; 88.9%, platinum-based therapy; and 52%, completed therapy. Approximately 37% had mild depression, and 39.3% showed mild hopelessness [Table 1].

Construct validity

We reversed the points of the negative items for body image ( first and fourth) and calculated for data fitness: KMO measure as 0.807 and Bartlett's test value as 985.889. The factor analysis was then deemed suitable for the samples (P = 0.0001).[38]

We used the varimax rotation technique because of the expected subgrouping of the scale into nonrelated factors in the EFA. The scale based on the varimax technique yielded four factors [Table 1]. Factor 1 had a power value range of 0.359–0.815; factor 2, 0.540–0.771; factor 3, 0.454–0.741; and factor 4, 0.556–0.839. We eliminated the items fourth, 10th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 24th, and 25th from the scale since their power loadings were <0.3.[36],[42] The eliminated items were as follows: “You are physically unattractive,” “Has cancer affected your overall sexual relationship with your husband/intimate partner?,” “Are you satisfied with the frequency of sexual intercourse this month?,” “Are you worried about your partner's overall sexual function?,” “Did you feel any sexual desire this month?,” “Have you reached orgasm?,” and “Did you feel satisfied after having sex?.” We included the sixth item to the second factor since it loaded the second value well and appeared appropriate to be in the second one. However, we reversed the points for the integrity meaningfulness. The value for the base components was higher than 1. The four factors explained 58.62% of the total variance. Further, the total item correlation coefficients ranged from 0.228 to 0.554 [Table 2].
Table 2: Load values for the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer after varimax rotation

Click here to view


The CFA revealed the following results: χ2/sd, 1.63; RMSEA, 0.065; GFI, 0.88; AGFI, 0.83; NNFI, 0.95; SRMR, 0.084; and CFI, 0.95. The results indicate that the model fit was at the expected level.[39],[40],[43] In the model, the standardized coefficients for the relationship between the items and their factors are shown in [Figure 1]. All of the standardized coefficients were significant at the 0.01 level. The coefficients ranged from 0.33 to 0.85 for the items. Thus, the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer with 18 items and four factors was found to be theoretically and statistically appropriate.
Figure 1: Results of the confirmatory factor analysis: The standardised coefficients for the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer (A: Body image; B: Role and relationship issues; C: Sexual activities; D: Sexual function)

Click here to view


Reliability

In terms of internal consistency of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer,[37],[44] the Cronbach's α was 0.76 for the body image subscale (item number: 5, = 14.186); 0.68 (item number: 3, = 4.726) for the role and relationship issue subscale; 0.71 (item number: 4, = 8.653) for the sexual activity subscale; and 0.82 (item number: 6, = 10.586) for the sexual function subscale. The total Cronbach's α of the scale was 0.72.

In terms of test–retest reliability, there was a very strong relationship between the first and second test findings (P = 0.0001) [Table 3].
Table 3: The relationships of subgroup points and test-retest points for Turkish version of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer (n=40)

Click here to view


Previous studies have suggested that the means and standard deviations should be tested for test–retest reliability even if the correlations were high between two applications.[41] In that context, we found greater similarity between the means and standard deviations of the first and the last applications of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer [Table 4].
Table 4: Frequency of test-retest points for the Turkish version of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer

Click here to view


We observed that the patients had positive body image perception when they had higher points for the body image subscale, experienced more role and relationship issues when they had higher points for the role and relationship issue subscale, and serious worsening of sexual activity performance and functioning when they had lower points for the sexual activity subscale and higher points for the sexual function subscale (Turkish version).

[Table 5] illustrates the 18 final items in both Turkish and English versions.
Table 5: Turkish and English of the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Sexual problems among women are often ignored.[24] Therefore, it is important to adapt the Sexuality Scale for Women with Gynecologic Cancer, which evaluates the body image, role and relationship issues, and sexual function and activities, for patients with cancer.

The adaptation of a scale specific to one culture for another culture is accomplished in several phases. Therefore, we applied several validity and reliability analyses. A scale is considered acceptable and valid if it measures what it is supposed to measure.[37]

Factor analyses were used in our study to reduce the related data structures into a smaller number of independent data structures, i.e., to identify the variables that supposedly explain the cause of the formation and name it when needed. Thereafter, the unnecessary items were discarded on the basis of the factor loading.[36],[45] Herein, we discarded seven items with load values of <0.3 after the EFA.[36],[42] The cause for discarding the items may be related to what women understand and feel about sex. Moreover, many Turkish women consider sex as a duty to please their husbands. We added the sixth item into the second factor since it showed a better load and seemed logical to be in the second one. After all the analyses, we found that the 18-item Turkish version of the scale had acceptable values, with the lowest values at 0.359 for the 17th item and 0.454 for the ninth item. When we checked the load values of the other items, we observed meaningful load values in the third, sixth, 12th, 13th 14th, and 21st items. The other items had the best load values (>0.70).[31]

It has been thought that “a scale has been constituted of well fitted and related items as the Cronbach's α has increased.” It has been expected to be higher than 0.70.[34],[36] We calculated the Cronbach's α, which was higher than 0.70 for the sexual function, sexual activity, and body image subscales. The value was acceptable at 0.68 for the role and relationship issue subscale.[34],[36] Zeng et al.,[28] found a Cronbach's α of 0.74 for the sexual activity subscale and 0.77 for the sexual function subscale. These values were nearly close to our values. Their Cronbach's α for the additional issue subscale was 0.86; conversely, we omitted this subscale in our study as suggested by experts. Determining the reliability of a scale necessitates time-wise consistency.

There were some differences in the items between the scale of Zeng et al.,[28] and the Turkish version herein. One reason might be that the participants in our study had different sociodemographic and health characteristics. For instance, Zeng et al.,[28] conducted their study on patients with cervical cancer; in our study, the majority of the participants were patients with ovarian cancer. Moreover, the number of patients with advanced cancer and taking combination therapy is higher in our study. There might also be some cultural differences. Although both Chinese and Turkish cultures recognize sex as a taboo, their social, individual, and religious differences might have affected the expression of sexual issues.[11]

The limitation of this study is the relatively small sample size (n = 150). This was mainly because of the difficulty for the patients to share private sex issues with the researchers. Future studies should test the sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer (Turkish version) in larger populations in different centers and cultures. In this study, the patients with gynecologic problems, not their partners, were interviewed, and the patients' previous sex lives were not evaluated. Furthermore, a second sexual scale was not included to compare the results.


  Conclusion Top


The final sexuality scale for women with gynecologic Cancer (Turkish version) was a valid and reliable tool. The reliability analyses revealed that the Turkish version had high internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Four-factor structures, obtained via the EFA and CFA and used to determine construct validity, were acceptable, significant, and highly valid.

The sexuality scale for women with gynecologic cancer can be used by nurses, doctors, midwives, and psychologists in clinics to evaluate the sexual life of patients. The Turkish version can also be used in studies on the sexual lives of women with gynecologic cancer in Turkey. Moreover, this scale can be translated into various languages and can be utilized in other countries or cultures. Gaining more information on the sexual problems of women with gynecologic cancer in various cultures will enhance the scientific literature.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank health workers in Dr. Abdurrahman Yurtaslan Oncology Research and Training Hospital, Hacettepe University Hospital, Ankara University Medical Faculty Hospital Gynecologic and Medical Oncology Clinics and Outpatient Chemotherapy Units.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
World Health Organization. GLOBOCAN 2012: Estimated Cancer Incidence Mortality and Prevalence Worldwide: in 2012. Avaible from: http://globocan.iarc.fr/Pages/fact_sheets_population.aspx [Last accessed on 2018 Aug 01].  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Huang Z, Zheng Y, Wen W, Wu C, Bao P, Wang C, et al. Incidence and mortality of gynaecological cancers: Secular trends in urban Shanghai, China over 40 years. Eur J Cancer 2016;63:1-10.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Siegel R, Ma J, Zou Z, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2014. CA Cancer J Clin 2014;64:9-29.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
National Cancer İnstitute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program, Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Cervix Uteri Cancer. Available from: https://www.seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/cervix.html. [Last accessed on 2018 Jul 14].  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
National Cancer İnstitute. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Result Program, Cancer Statistics Factsheets: Ovary Cancer. Available from: https://www.seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/ovary.html. [Last accessed on 2018 Jul 14].  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Şencan İ, Keskinkılıç B. Türkiye Kanser İstatistikleri [Cancer Statistics Turkey]. TC Sağlık Bakanlığı, Halk Sağlığı Kurumu [Republic of Turkey Ministry of Health, Public Health Institution], Ankara; 2016: 24.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Oskay UY, Beji NK, Bal MD, Yılmaz SD. Evaluation of sexual function in patients with gynecologic cancer and evidence-based nursing interventions. Sex Disabil 2011;29:33-41.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
World Health Organization. Defining Sexual Health; 2006. Available from: http://www.who.int/reproductivehealth/topics/sexual_health/sh_definitions/en/. [Last accessed on 2017 Oct 26].  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
American Cancer Society. Sexuality for the Women with Cancer. Available from: http://www.cancer.org/treatment/treatmentsandsideeffects/physicalsideeffects/sexualsideeffectsinwomen/sexualityforthewoman/index. [Last accessed on 2017 Oct 26].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Parish SJ, Kingsberg SA. The sexual health interview: Female. In: Mulhall JP, Incrocci L, Goldstein I, Rosen R, editors. Cancer and Sexual Health. New York USA: Humana Press; 2011. p. 291-306.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Tierney DK. Sexuality: A quality-of-life issue for cancer survivors. Semin Oncol Nurs 2008;24:71-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Okazaki S. Influences of culture on Asian Americans' sexuality. J Sex Res 2002;39:34-41.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Aral SO, Fransen L. STD/HIV prevention in Turkey: Planning a sequence of interventions. AIDS Educ Prev 1995;7:544-53.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Tan G, Waldman K, Bostick R. Psychosocial issues, sexuality and cancer. Sex Disabil 2002;20:297-318.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Kullmer U, Stenger K, Milch W, Zygmunt M, Sachsse S, Münstedt K, et al. Self-concept, body image, and use of unconventional therapies in patients with gynaecological malignancies in the state of complete remission and recurrence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 1999;82:101-6.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Burns M, Costello J, Ryan-Woolley B, Davidson S. Assessing the impact of late treatment effects in cervical cancer: An exploratory study of women's sexuality. Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) 2007;16:364-72.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Reis N, Beji NK, Coskun A. Quality of life and sexual functioning in gynecological cancer patients: Results from quantitative and qualitative data. Eur J Oncol Nurs 2010;14:137-46.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Bal MD, Yılmaz SD, Beji NK. Sexual health in patients with gynecological cancer: A qualitative study. Sex Disabil 2013;31:83-92.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pieterse QD, Maas CP, ter Kuile MM, Lowik M, van Eijkeren MA, Trimbos JB, et al. An observational longitudinal study to evaluate miction, defecation, and sexual function after radical hysterectomy with pelvic lymphadenectomy for early-stage cervical cancer. Int J Gynecol Cancer 2006;16:1119-29.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Donovan KA, Taliaferro LA, Alvarez EM, Jacobsen PB, Roetzheim RG, Wenham RM, et al. Sexual health in women treated for cervical cancer: Characteristics and correlates. Gynecol Oncol 2007;104:428-34.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Algier L, Kav S. Nurses' approach to sexuality-related issues in patients receiving cancer treatments. Turk J Cancer 2008;38:135-41.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Zeng YC, Liu X, Loke AY. Addressing sexuality issues of women with gynaecological cancer: Chinese nurses' attitudes and practice. J Adv Nurs 2012;68:280-92.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Flynn KE, Reese JB, Jeffery DD, Abernethy AP, Lin L, Shelby RA, et al. Patient experiences with communication about sex during and after treatment for cancer. Psychooncology 2012;21:594-601.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Katz A. The sounds of silence: Sexuality information for cancer patients. J Clin Oncol 2005;23:238-41.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Rosen RC, Nelson CJ. Validated questionnaires in female sexual function assessment. In: Mulhall JP, Incrocci L, Goldstein I, Rosen R, editors. Cancer and Sexual Health. New York, USA: Humana Press; 2011. p. 339-50.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Yılmaz CA, Eryılmaz HY. The Validity and reliability of the index of female sexual function (IFSF). Androloji Bülteni 2004;18:275-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.
Aygin D, Eti-Aslan F. The Turkish adaptation of the female sexual function index. Turk Klinikleri J Med Sci 2005;25:393-9.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Zeng YC, Li Q, Li X, Loke AY. Chinese women's sexuality concerns after gynecologic cancer. Cancer Nurs 2012;35:257-64.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: Literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol 1993;46:1417-32.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Sperber AD. Translation and validation of study instruments for cross-cultural research. Gastroenterology 2004;126:S124-8.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Cha ES, Kim KH, Erlen JA. Translation of scales in cross-cultural research: Issues and techniques. J Adv Nurs 2007;58:386-95.  Back to cited text no. 31
    
32.
Rchaidia L, Dierckx de Casterlé B, Verbeke G, Gastmans C. Oncology patients' perceptions of the good nurse: An explorative study on the psychometric properties of the Flemish adaptation of the care-Q instrument. J Clin Nurs 2012;21:1387-400.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Lynn MR. Determination and quantification of content validity. Nurs Res 1986;35:382-5.  Back to cited text no. 33
    
34.
Tinsley HE, Tinsley DJ. Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. J Couns Psychol 1987;34:414.  Back to cited text no. 34
    
35.
Kimberlin CL, Winterstein AG. Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2008;65:2276-84.  Back to cited text no. 35
    
36.
Fraenkel JR, Wallen NE, Hyun HH. How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. Newyork USA: McGraw-Hill; 2012.  Back to cited text no. 36
    
37.
Polit DF, Beck CT. Nursing Research: Generating and Assessing Evidence of Nursing Practice. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2008.  Back to cited text no. 37
    
38.
Dixon JK. Exploratory factor analysis. In: Munro BH, editor. Statistical Methods for Health Care Research. 5th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005. p. 321-50.  Back to cited text no. 38
    
39.
Jörekog KG, Sörbom D. LISREL 8.80.for Windows Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 39
    
40.
Gee CB, Rhodes JE. A social support and social strain measure for minority adolescent mothers: A confirmatory factor analytic study. Child Care Health Dev 2008;34:87-97.  Back to cited text no. 40
    
41.
Spor AR. Statistics, Reliability, and Validity in Sports, Health, and Education with Examples. Ankara: Detay Yayınları; 2012.  Back to cited text no. 41
    
42.
Büyüköztürk, Ş. Factor analysis: Basic concepts and using the development scale. Kuram Uygulamada Eğitim Yönetimi 2002;32:470-83.  Back to cited text no. 42
    
43.
Çelik B, Karadağ A, Hisar F. Instrument of professional attitude for student nurses (IPASN): A confirmatory factor analytic study. Nurse Educ Today 2012;32:497-500.  Back to cited text no. 43
    
44.
Mitchell ML, Jolley JM, editors. Measuring and manipulating variables: Reliability and validity. In: Research Design Explained. Belmont CA: Wadsworth; 2013. p. 143-94.  Back to cited text no. 44
    
45.
Raslı A. Data Analysis and Interpretation: A Handbook for Postgraduate Social Scientists. Malaysia Technology University; 2006.  Back to cited text no. 45
    

 
  Authors Top

Ayten Demir


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
Authors
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed435    
    Printed31    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded76    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]