Cited by 49Cancer survivorship and careHealth disparities and outcomesPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

The Cancer Loneliness Scale and Cancer-related Negative Social Expectations Scale: development and validation

Open access
Adams, Rebecca N., Mosher, Catherine E., Rand, Kevin L., Hirsh, Adam T., Monahan, Patrick O., Abonour, Rafat, Kroenke, Kurt·2017·Quality of Life Research

Abstract

Purpose Loneliness is a known risk factor for poor mental and physical health outcomes and quality of life in the general population, and preliminary research suggests that loneliness is linked to poorer health outcomes in cancer patients as well. Various aspects of the cancer experience contribute to patients feeling alone and misunderstood. Furthermore, loneliness theory suggests that negative social expectations, which may specifically relate to the cancer experience, precipitate and sustain loneliness. Cancer-specific tools are needed to assess key constructs of this theory. In the current study, we developed and tested measures of (1) loneliness attributed to cancer (i.e., cancer-related loneliness) and (2) negative social expectations related to cancer.Methods First, we developed the items for the measures based on theory, prior research, and expert feedback. Next, we assessed the measures' psychometric properties (i.e., internal consistency and construct validity) in a diverse sample of cancer patients.Results The final products included a 7-item unidimensional Cancer Loneliness Scale and a 5-item unidimensional Cancer-related Negative Social Expectations Scale. Evidence of excellent reliability and validity was found for both measures.Conclusions The resulting measures have both clinical and research utility.

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 · 10.1007/s11136-017-1518-4

Cites

53 of 54 references verified1 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?

  • PROMIS measures have undergone rigorous psychometric testing, and evidence supports their reliability and validity in cancer survivors.

    “These NIH-funded measures have undergone rigorous psychometric testing [21], and evidence supports their reliability and validity in cancer survivors [19, 22].”

    From Symptom experiences in post-treatment cancer survivors: associations with acceptance and commitment therapy constructs. (2021) · cites this paper as [22]

    In Methods, under “PROMIS measures of social and health-related outcomes” (page unavailable), the paper reports rigorous reliability and validity testing of PROMIS measures and generally good internal consistency for the measures used in its cancer-patient sample. It does not establish their validity specifically in cancer survivors, and the physical-health scale initially had poor internal consistency (α=0.27), improving after removal of an item. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [18]Cutrona CE 1982 Transition to college: Loneliness and the process of social adjustment Peplau LA Perlman D Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy 291 309 New York Wiley-Interscience

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adams, R. N., Mosher, C. E., Rand, K. L., Hirsh, A. T., Monahan, P. O., Abonour, R., & Kroenke, K.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
  • Indiana University School of Medicine (US)
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Adams, Rebecca N.
Venue
Quality of Life Research
Published
2017-02-24
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
1901-1913
ISSN
  • 0962-9343 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-2649
OpenAlex
W2589647377
Cited by
49
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Quality of Life Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • Purdue University Indianapolis (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
  • PMC
Funders
  • American Psychological Association
  • National Cancer Institute (R25CA117865, K05CA175048, K07CA168883)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Health › Health disparities and outcomes
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
loneliness, scale development, psychometric validation, cancer patients, quality of life
MeSH terms
Adult, Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Female, Humans, Loneliness, Male, Middle Aged, Neoplasms, Psychometrics, Quality of Life, Reproducibility of Results, Young Adult

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