Cited by 110Cancer survivorship and careHead and Neck Cancer StudiesHealth Education and Validation

Preliminary evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Shame and Stigma Scale in head and neck cancer

Kissane, David W., Patel, Snehal G., Baser, Raymond E., Bell, Rachel, Farberov, Maria, Ostroff, Jamie S., Li, Yuelin, Singh, Bhuvanesh +2 more·2013·Head & Neck

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Facial disfigurement from head and neck cancer can lead to the development of shame and a perception of stigma. We sought to develop the Shame and Stigma Scale (SSS) to measure this. Items were administered to 104 patients with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity, together with measures of quality of life and adaptation. Exploratory factor analysis and item response theory (IRT) models assessed its psychometric properties. RESULTS: A 20-item SSS had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.94 and 4 factors: shame with appearance, sense of stigma, regret, and speech/social concerns. These factors show satisfactory internal validity, convergent validity with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck (FACT-H&N), Demoralization Scale and Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) Depression, and divergent validity with the Social Desirability Scale. The items displayed desirable properties in factor-specific (IRT) models. CONCLUSION: Further validation studies are worthwhile to confirm this factor structure, reliability, and validity, and generalizability to all head and neck cancers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hed.22943

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 53 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kissane, D. W., Patel, S. G., Baser, R. E., Bell, R., Farberov, M., Ostroff, J. S., Li, Y., Singh, B., Kraus, D. H., & Shah, J. P.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Kissane, David W.
Venue
Head & Neck
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2012-02-24
Volume
35
Issue
2
Pages
172-183
ISSN
  • 1043-3074 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0347
OpenAlex
W2153177161
Cited by
110
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Head & Neck (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Otorhinolaryngology › Head and Neck Cancer Studies
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
shame, stigma, head and neck cancer, oral squamous cell carcinoma, facial disfigurement, psychometric validation, scale development, quality of life, demoralization, depression, social problems
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Physiological, Adaptation, Psychological, Age Factors, Body Image, Carcinoma, Squamous Cell, Cross-Sectional Studies, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Head and Neck Neoplasms, Humans, Male, Mouth Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Self Concept, Sex Factors, Shame, Reproducibility of Results, Sickness Impact Profile, Risk Assessment, Neck Dissection, Social Stigma

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review