Cited by 306Cancer survivorship and carePsychometric Methodologies and TestingHealth Education and Validation

A POMS short form for cancer patients: psychometric and structural evaluation

Open access
Baker, Frank, Denniston, Maxine, Zabora, James, Polland, Adrienne, Dudley, William N.·2002·Psycho-Oncology

Abstract

The internal consistency, validity, and factor structure of the Shacham shortened version (37 items) of the 65‐item profile of mood states (POMS) were examined with a sample of 428 cancer patients who were awaiting bone marrow transplantation. Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.78 to 0.91 were obtained for each of the six subscales of the POMS‐short form (POMS‐SF) and for the total 37‐item scale. Correlations with the CES‐D, the Self‐Rated Karnofsky, the MOS SF‐20 Physical Functioning, and the Bradburn Positive and Negative Affect Scales provided evidence of the convergent and discriminant validity of the POMS‐SF. Results of a confirmatory factor analysis were supportive of the 6‐factor interpretation of the POMS items in the 37‐item version of the POMS. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/pon.564

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 40 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. 1994. Psychometric Theory. (3rd edn). McGraw-Hill: New York.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Baker, F., Denniston, M., Zabora, J., Polland, A., & Dudley, W. N.
Affiliations
  • American Cancer Society (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Utah (US)
Corresponding author
Baker, Frank
Venue
Psycho-Oncology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2002-07
Volume
11
Issue
4
Pages
273-281
ISSN
  • 1057-9249 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-1611
OpenAlex
W2157354328
Cited by
304
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 21
FWCI
1.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psycho-Oncology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • NC Digital Online Collection of Knowledge and Scholarship (The University of North Carolina at Greensboro) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
Keywords
Profile of Mood States, cancer patients, mood states, psychometric properties, factor structure, convergent validity, discriminant validity, internal consistency, bone marrow transplantation, positive and negative affect, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Surveys and Questionnaires, Social Adjustment, Reproducibility of Results, Bone Marrow Transplantation, Mood Disorders

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