Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249562

Fear of breast cancer among young Spanish women: Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Champion breast cancer fear scale

Aldo Aguirre-Camacho 1,*, Beatriz Hidalgo 1,2,#, Gustavo González-Cuevas 3,#
Editor: César Leal-Costa4
PMCID: PMC8021158  PMID: 33819298

Abstract

Heightened fear of breast cancer (FBC) has been linked to increased distress following breast cancer diagnosis and to avoidance of mammography screening. To our knowledge, however, no studies have examined the nature of FBC exclusively among young females, even though they are overrepresented in media stories of breast cancer. Given that no instruments are available to assess FBC in the Spanish language, we sought to 1) evaluate the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Champion Breast Cancer Fear Scale (CBCFS), and 2) offer preliminary data on the nature of FBC among young women. Participants (N = 442, mean age = 21.17, range 17–35) completed the translated CBCFS (CBCFS-es) and the Spanish version of the Short Health Anxiety Inventory. The CBCFS-es demonstrated good concurrent validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability. Confirmatory factor analysis showed adequate fit to a one-factor solution. The majority of participants reported considerably high levels of FBC, as 25.34% and 59.73% of them scored above the moderate- and high-FBC cut-offs, respectively. Moreover, FBC could not be explained by general concerns regarding health and illness, given that levels of health anxiety were low. Implications for health education, research, and clinical practice are discussed.

Introduction

A substantial research base suggests that breast cancer has received more media attention over the last three decades than any other type of cancer, and perhaps any other health condition [13]. Even though this has helped raise awareness of breast cancer’s early signs and symptoms, and thus contributed to lowering mortality rates [4], some authors have pointed out that increased media attention has also had unwanted side effects [3]. Many studies have found that breast cancer stories often contain information that highlights the negative consequences of being diagnosed, the unpredictability related to living with breast cancer, and that also misrepresents breast cancer as affecting women of lower age than in reality [5, 6]. Accordingly, it has been suggested that the “age of breast cancer awareness” has resulted in disproportionate fear, to a point where breast cancer seems to be dreaded even more than other types of conditions of worse prognosis and higher prevalence [3, 7, 8].

Fear of breast cancer, as well as breast cancer-related worry and anxiety, has been found to both promote and interfere with cancer-preventive behaviors (e.g. information seeking, attendance to mammogram screening) across different studies [9]. However, such inconsistency has been partly attributed to several conceptual and methodological issues. First, the terms “fear”, “worry”, and “anxiety” have been often used interchangeably in this area of research [9], even though some studies have distinguished between the affective nature of fear and the cognitive nature of worry and anxiety [10, 11]. Second, some authors have suggested that the relationship between fear/worry/anxiety and breast cancer screening may be best represented by an inverted-U, given that both low and high levels of fear/worry/anxiety seem to deter women from engaging in cancer-preventive behaviors [12, 13]. And third, these three constructs have been measured following different approaches within this area of research, including structured questions, single items, ad hoc checklists assessing barriers to cancer screening, generic measures of emotions (e.g. Symptoms of Anxiety and Depression Scale, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory), and cancer-specific questionnaires (e.g. Cancer Attitude Inventory, Cancer Worry Scale Revised for Genetic Counseling) [9, 14].

The development of the Champion Breast Cancer Fear Scale (CBCFS) constituted an important step forward in the assessment of fear of breast cancer, especially considering the conceptual and methodological inconsistencies found in this area of research [9, 10]. The CBCFS is based on a conceptual definition of fear as a negatively toned emotion (e.g. “feeling upset”, “feeling anxious”) accompanied by heightened physiological responses (e.g. “feeling jittery”, “feeling one’s heart beat faster”); items that reflected cognitive responses, rather than emotional and physiological ones, were excluded during the initial stages of development of the scale (i.e. “I don’t like to think about breast cancer” and “The more you think about breast cancer, the more likely you are to get it”). The CBCFS is specifically centered on the threat posed by breast cancer, and thus it offers a clearer assessment of breast cancer fear in comparison to less specific measures.

The CBCFS has been used in many studies and validated in several cultures. The original one-factor structure of this scale was replicated by Moshki et al. [15] in a sample of Iranian women; however, a two-factor structure was obtained by Secginli [16] in a sample of Turkish women. The CBCFS was also adapted to assess fear of colorectal cancer in a Chinese sample [17], where the one factor structure was also supported. Details about the psychometric properties and factor structure of the CBCFS and subsequent cultural adaptations can be found in Table 1. To our knowledge, the CBCFS is the only scale that has been specifically developed to assess fear of breast cancer, and no Spanish version is available so far.

Table 1. Basic study details, psychometric properties, and factor structure of the Champion breast cancer fear scale and subsequent cultural adaptations.

Champion et al. [10] Secginli et al. [16] Leung et al. [17]* Moshki et al. [15]
Publication Year 2004 2012 2014 2017
Country USA Turkey China Iran
Sample Size 1390 224 250 (53 male) 482
Participants with Cancer No No No No
Mean age (SD) 66.1 (10.4) 46.97 (6.68) 75.3 (7.6) 47.35 (9.81)
Scale mean (SD) 21.18 (8.52) 26.36 (7.29) 3.10 (1.04)** 26.29 (7.95)
Internal consistency Cronbach α = .91 Cronbach α = .90 Cronbach α = .95 Cronbach α = .95
Test-Retest r = .70, p < .001 r = .60, p < .01 r = .52, p = .001 r = .85, p < .001
Structural validity analysis PCA PCA CFA CFA
Factors 1 2 1 1
Explained Variance 57% 53.79% N/A 74.15%
Factor loadings range .47–.84 .62–.83 .69 to .93 .64 to .80

Note:

*In this study the Champion Breast Cancer Fear Scale was adapted to asses fear of colorectal cancer;

**The scale mean was calculated using the item mean, rather than the sum of the different items; PCA = Principal Components Analysis; CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis.

The present study

The objectives of this study were 1) to translate the CBCFS into Spanish and analyze its psychometric properties and factor structure in a sample of young women attending university, and 2) to offer preliminary data on the nature of fear of breast cancer among women of this age group.

Fear of breast cancer has been most often studied among women of at least 40 years of age, in the context of breast cancer screening [9]. To our knowledge, however, no study has examined fear of breast cancer exclusively among very young women, even though doing so is necessary for several reasons. First, it is important to delineate the extent to which younger women feel threatened by breast cancer. On one hand, young women may be less likely to fear breast cancer because of their objective lower risk [18]; also, the threat of breast cancer may be lower among newer generations, given that over the last two decades several nations have witnessed a stabilization and decline in breast cancer mortality rates [19, 20]. On the other hand, however, breast cancer continues to be quite unique in terms of the media attention it receives, and this may continue to create disproportionate alarm even among young females [2, 21, 22]. In fact, different studies have found that women under the age of 50 and even 40 are often represented in the mass media as the typical breast cancer patient/survivor [23, 24], even though they constitute a minority of those diagnosed with breast cancer [25]. Second, it is important to identify the specific factors that may explain the potential heightened fear of breast cancer among this age group. Breast cancer can threaten young women’s perception of femininity and sexuality like no other health condition [26], and can put on hold important life goals, such as starting a career and a family. These are factors that may be especially salient to young women and thus increase their fear of breast cancer, considering that these factors are often highlighted in breast cancer news and stories wherein younger women are overrepresented [3, 10]. Third, a better understanding of the factors leading to heightened fear of breast cancer early on in women’s lives may help in planning for more effective interventions directed at increasing breast-cancer preventive behaviours.

Methods

Participants

Participants were eligible if they were between 16 and 35 years of age and had never received a cancer diagnosis.

Procedure

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Autonomous University of Madrid (approval number: CEI 66–1181). Participants were recruited through a research participation system, managed by the Faculty of Psychology. Participants who agreed to take part in the study gave their written informed consent and were offered course credits in exchange for their participation. A minority of participants from the participant pool were just under 18 years of age, however, the Ethics Committee approved the lack of parent or guardian consent. The process of adaptation and validation of the CBCFS comprised two stages: the translation from English to Spanish, and a validation survey.

Translation from English to Spanish

The translation process followed the Dual Panel Method; this approach to translating psychometric instruments was proposed by Swaine-Verdier et al. [27] to address some of the problems that may arise when using the Forward/Backward Translation Method. The Forward/Backward Translation Method is often considered the gold standard, however, no empirical evidence has been provided in support of such view. Moreover, the results of a recent review article of different procedures used in the cross-cultural adaptation of psychometric instruments suggests that back-translation is not a necessary step in the translation process [28].

In accordance with the Dual Panel Method, the initial translation was carried out by a bilingual panel of three women and three men; the purpose of this panel was to reach an accessible and conceptually equivalent translation. The final wording chosen for most items was based on general consensus, however, different alternatives were provided for two items (i.e. feeling upset and feeling uneasy) with potentially different translations in Spanish. This initial translation was then reviewed by a lay panel of five monolingual cancer-free Spanish women of average educational level. The purpose of this lay panel was to decide on the final version of the scale by ensuring that the translation provided by the bilingual panel was easy to understand and sounded natural in Spanish.

Validation survey

A survey was conducted to test the psychometric properties and factor structure of the Spanish version of the CBCFS (hereinafter CBCFS-es). Participants completed a questionnaire package that included questions about basic demographic characteristics and perceived health status, as well as the Short Health Anxiety Inventory, and the CBCFS-es. A subset of participants (N = 78) also completed the CBCFS-es a second time following two weeks.

Measures

Champion Breast Cancer Fear Scale (CBCFS)

The CFBSC [10] is a self-report 8-item measure of emotional and physiological responses to fear of breast cancer. Participants answers are provided using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 ("strongly disagree") to 5 ("strongly agree"). The total score is a sum score of all 8 items. There are no reverse-scored items. According to the original study, fear of breast cancer can be conceptualized as low (score of 8 to 15), moderate (score of 16 to 23) and high (score of 24 to 40). Higher scores indicate higher levels of fear of breast cancer.

Short Health Anxiety Inventory (SHAI)

The SHAI [29, 30] is a self-report 18-item measure of health anxiety independent of physical health status. The two-factor Spanish version of this scale was used in this study, which evaluates health-related worry and feared consequences of having an illness. Participants’ responses are provided using a four-option multiple choice format ranging from 0 to 3 (i.e. no symptoms, mild symptoms, severe symptoms, and very severe symptoms, respectively). A cut-off score of 27 has been used to identify individuals with hypochondriasis and other anxiety disorders [31, 32]. Higher scores indicate higher levels of health anxiety. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s α) of the SHAI in the current sample was .81.

Statistical analyses

Descriptive statistics and validity analyses were conducted using SPSS version 23. Reliability analysis and confirmatory factor analysis were conducted in R (version 3.6.1.) using the psych package [33] and the lavaan package [34] respectively. The factorial model was fitted using diagonally-weighted least squares estimation (DWLS), as recommended when analyzing ordinal data [35]. Model fit was evaluated using a combination of exact fit and approximate fit indexes. Adequate model fit was defined by the following criteria: a non-significant chi-squared statistic value, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) equal to or above .95, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) equal to or above .95, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) below .06, and Square Root Mean Residual (SRMR) below .08 [36].

Preliminary data analyses found a negligible amount of missing data in some variables (no more than 1.30%). After confirming these data were missing completely at random, the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm was used to impute the missing values before carrying out the statistical analyses.

Results

Participants

The sample comprised 442 female undergraduate psychology students from the Autonomous University of Madrid, Spain. Participants’ age ranged from 17 to 35 years and had a mean of 21.17 years (SD = 3.38). The overall health status of the sample was good, as most participants rated their health as either good (59.50%) or excellent (30.80%), whereas a minority rated it as fair (7.90%) and poor (1.80%). The majority of participants reported still living with their parents (84.20%) and attending university fulltime (86.40%); 14.30% also reported having a job.

Translation from English to Spanish

The translation produced by the bilingual panel was well received by the lay panel. The final wording for items 3 and 7 were chosen based on what sounded more natural according to day-to-day usage in Spain (Table 2).

Table 2. Items from the original and Spanish versions of the Champion breast cancer fear scale.
1. The thought of breast cancer scares me 1. El solo pensar en el cáncer de mama me asusta
2. When I think about breast cancer, I feel nervous 2. Pensar en el cáncer de mama me pone nerviosa
3. When I think about breast cancer, I get upset 3. Pensar en el cáncer de mama me estresa
4. When I think about breast cancer, I get depressed 4. Pensar en el cáncer de mama me deprime
5. When I think about breast cancer, I get jittery 5. Pensar en el cáncer de mama hace que me sienta intranquila
6. When I think about breast cancer, my heart beats faster 6. Pensar en el cáncer de mama me acelera el corazón
7. When I think about breast cancer, I feel uneasy 7. Pensar en el cáncer de mama me perturba
8. When I think about breast cancer, I feel anxious 8. Pensar en el cáncer de mama me produce ansiedad

Descriptive statistics

Table 3 shows the descriptive statistics of the study variables. It is worth noting that only 14.93% of participants showed levels of fear of breast cancer categorized as low.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of study variables (N = 442).

Mean (SD) Range Scale range
Mean SHAI score 15.61 (5.81) 3–41 0–54
 Mean FI score 13.40 (5.33) 2–38 0–42
 Mean CI score 2.21 (1.52) 0–8 0–12
Mean CBCFS-es score 24.92 (7.85) 8–40 8–40
N (%)
 Low fear of breast cancer (score 8–15) 66 (14.93)
 Moderate fear of breast cancer (score 16–23) 112 (25.34)
 High fear of breast cancer (score 24–40) 264 (59.73)

Note. SHAI = Short Health Anxiety scale; FI = fear of illness subscale; CI = consequences of illness subscale; CBCFS-es = Spanish version of Champion Breast Cancer Fear Scale. Higher scores on the SHAI, FI, and CI indicate higher levels of health anxiety, fear of illness, and consequences of illness, respectively; Higher scores on the CBCFS-es indicate higher levels of fear of breast cancer. Low, moderate and high fear of breast cancer as categorized by the CBCFS-es cutoffs.

Reliability of the scale scores

The CBCFS-es demonstrated excellent internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = .92, omega total ꞷ = .92). Each of the 8 items also showed good corrected item-total correlations; these ranged from .67 to 78, well above the criterion of .30 recommended by Nunnally and Bernstein [37] but also slightly above the criterion of .70 that identifies items as potentially redundant (Table 4). The scale also demonstrated good stability over a two-week interval as assessed in a subsample of 78 participants; the test-retest reliability coefficient was .84.

Table 4. Means, standard deviations, percentage of floor/ceiling effects, and corrected item-total correlations of each of the items from the Spanish version of the Champion breast cancer fear scale (N = 442).

Items M (SD) Floor % Ceiling % CIT-C
1. The thought of breast cancer scares me 3.63 (1.13) 5.4 20.9 .71
2. When I think about breast cancer, I feel nervous 3.25 (1.18) 8.4 13.6 .77
3. When I think about breast cancer, I get upset 3.03 (1.22) 12.0 12.4 .74
4. When I think about breast cancer, I get depressed 3.09 (1.27) 14.0 14.2 .67
5. When I think about breast cancer, I get jittery 3.03 (1.23) 12.4 11.8 .74
6. When I think about breast cancer, my heart beats faster 2.85 (1.26) 18.0 9.1 .74
7. When I think about breast cancer, I feel uneasy 2.88 (1.25) 17.0 10.6 .76
8. When I think about breast cancer, I feel anxious 3.18 (1.29) 12.9 16.3 .78

Note: CIT-C = Corrected Item-to-Total Coefficient; Floor % = Percentage of participants scoring the lowest on a given item; Ceiling % = Percentage of participants scoring the highest on a given item; Items are rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (from 1 to 5).

Concurrent validity

The CBCFS-es showed weak to moderate but statistically significant correlations with the subscales fear of illness (r = .36, p < .001) and consequences of illness, (r = .25, p < .001) from the SHAI.

Structural validity

A one-factor model was fitted to the data to assess the unidimensionality of the CBCFS-es. The model failed the exact fit test (χ2 = 56.79, df = 20, p < .001); this result however was expected because the chi-square test is usually affected by large sample sizes [38]. Approximate fit indexes indicate an adequate fit of the one-factor model to the data: CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.99, RMSEA = 0.065 (90% CI = 0.045, 0.085), SRMR = 0.035. As shown in Table 5, the values for the standardized factor loadings range from .70 to .81, and the proportion of variance explained by the factor in each item ranges from .48 to .65. These results indicate a strong relationship between the latent factor and the items of the scale.

Table 5. Standardized factor loading estimates, standardized error variances and R-squared values for the one-factor model (N = 442).

Item Estimate Error variance R-squared
1.The thought of breast cancer scares me .74 (.03) .45 (.09) .55
2.When I think about breast cancer, I feel nervous .81 (.03) .34 (.09) .65
3.When I think about breast cancer, I get upset .77 (.03) .40 (.09) .59
4.When I think about breast cancer, I get depressed .70 (.03) .51 (.09) .48
5.When I think about breast cancer, I get jittery .77 (.03) .41 (.09) .59
6.When I think about breast cancer, my heart beats faster .77 (.03) .40 (.09) .60
7.When I think about breast cancer, I feel uneasy .80 (.03) .36 (.10) .64
8.When I think about breast cancer, I feel anxious .81 (.03) .35 (.10) .65

Note: Standard error of estimate in parentheses.

We attempted to estimate the two-factor structure found by Secginli [16], but this model could not be fitted to the data due to the high estimated correlation between the two factors (r > 1.00). This result indicates that the two factors are not statistically distinguishable in the collected data and that they should be combined into one factor, which further supports the unidimensionality of the scale.

After assessing the dimensionality of the scale, we calculated the factor scores based on the one-factor solution that showed a good fit to the data. The one-factor model yielded factor scores that were almost indistinguishable from the sum scores (r = .99), which supports the use of sum scores for this scale as proposed in the original study [10].

Discussion

The first objective of the present study was to translate the CBCFS from English to Spanish and assess its psychometric properties and factor structure in a sample of young Spanish women. The results showed that the adaptation process was successful. All of the items worked well in the analyses, as indicated by their high item-total correlations with the overall score and strong relationship with the latent factor; the scale as a whole also worked well, as indicated by its high internal consistency and test-retest reliability. The results of the CFA were congruent with the one-factor structure obtained by Champion et al. [10] in their study of development of the CBCFS, as well as with other adaptation studies [15, 17].

The results obtained here are consistent with the conceptualization of fear of breast cancer on which the CBCFS is based. The CBCFS-es total score was weakly to moderately correlated with the fear of illness and consequences of illness subscales from the SHAI, which can be explained in at least two ways. First, the CBCFS only comprises items related to emotional and physiological responses, whereas the SHAI mostly assesses cognitive responses (e.g. ability to control thoughts, imagining being sick, wondering about the meaning of bodily sensations) [29, 30]. This finding is congruent with those of previous studies showing that, although somehow related, cancer-related affect and cognition constitute separate factors with distinct roles in the process of influencing cancer-related health behaviors [9, 11]. Second, the SHAI assess anxiety about illness in general, whereas the CBCFS specifically assesses fear of breast cancer; that is, fear of breast cancer may be partly explained by a general propensity to show concern for one’s health but it seems to be also explained by factors specifically related to having breast cancer.

This study also sought to preliminarily examine the extent to which young Spanish women felt afraid of breast cancer, and the results suggest that they did to a considerable extent. The level of fear of breast cancer reported by participants was similarly high to that shown by samples of older women [10, 15, 39]; also, almost 60% of scores were above the cut-off indicating high levels of fear of breast cancer. In contrast, the level of health anxiety was relatively low: the distribution of the SHAI scores was positively skewed and the sample’s mean (i.e. 15.61) was well below the cut-off of 27, which may indicate the presence of hypochondriasis and other anxiety disorders. Altogether, these results suggest that participants were little concerned about becoming ill in general, and yet, they seemed considerably afraid of breast cancer. This finding suggest that breast cancer may be quite unique in terms of the amount fear it evokes, even among young women without significant health concerns and with low objective risk. This is in line with the results of previous studies [2, 3, 40]. In addition, when compared to previous studies carried out over the last two decades, these results also suggest that the level of fear evoked by breast cancer has not changed much, despite the positive epidemiological changes that have taken place during this time in several developed nations (i.e. reduced mortality and improved treatments) [41].

The results of this study should be interpreted in light of some limitations. The sample was composed of university students, and they may differ from young women not attending university in terms of their socio-economic status and that of their families. Socio-economic status (SES) has been linked to health literacy and health-related attitudes and behaviors [42], and therefore it may also be related to the reported levels of fear of breast cancer. Moreover, university students may differ from non-university students in their level of knowledge about breast cancer, given their higher educational level and likely that of their families. Nevertheless, both university and non-university students may be equally exposed to inaccurate and fatalistic media information regarding breast cancer, which may reduce any of such potential differences. In any case, the relevance of these factors (i.e. SES, health literacy, level of knowledge and media information about breast cancer) in relation to fear of breast cancer are, to our knowledge, yet to be studied among women of this age group; this also appears to be the first study examining fear of breast cancer within this cultural context. Therefore, the results presented here should be taken with caution, given the preliminary nature of these findings. Accordingly, future studies should examine this topic further; special attention should be devoted to uncovering the specific factors that may lead to heightened fear of breast cancer early on in women’s lives.

We believe that the findings presented here have important implications for work in health education and prevention, as well as for research and clinical practice. First, it is important to identify the factors that may lead to high levels of fear of breast cancer among women of this age group. Doing so may help plan for more effective media campaigns or educational interventions wherein any information gaps can be properly addressed early on in women’s lives, without creating unnecessary concern about breast cancer. Previous studies have in fact shown that the inaccurate/alarmist representation of breast cancer information can increase doubts among young women as to whether they should also be regularly screened, often putting in question recommendation for mammography screening [24]. In Spain breast cancer screening is based on recommendations from the European Union: all women between the ages of 50 and 69 are eligible for biannual mammograms, whereas women with a family history of breast cancer are also screened between the ages of 45 and 49 [43]. Nonetheless, fear of breast cancer has also been linked to other preventive behaviours aside from attendance to mammography screening, and thus, it is also important to know whether young women may engage in such behaviours. For example, also based on the recommendations cited above, breast self-examination is recommended from ages 18 to 20, and a yearly clinical breast examination is recommended from the age of 25 onwards. Second, heightened fear of breast cancer may divert women’s attention from other diseases that pose a similarly high or even higher risk to their health (e.g. heart disease). Previous studies have found that individuals who see themselves at risk for a specific disease tend to worry less about other health conditions [44, 45]. Therefore, young women may benefit from health education interventions that present them with a realistic view of the risk posed by breast cancer and other health conditions. Third, some of the misconceptions leading to heightened of fear of breast cancer early on in women’s lives may also interfere with preventive behaviours. For example, the inaccurate/alarmist representation of breast cancer in the mass media can lead to fatalistic beliefs about breast cancer (e.g. that there is little one can do after receiving a breast cancer diagnosis) [46]. In turn, previous studies have found that individuals who hold fatalist beliefs about cancer are more likely to avoid information about cancer, which increases the probability that such fatalist beliefs remain unchallenged [47], and less likely to see the importance of engaging early detection practices [48].

In sum, the results of this study show evidence that the CBCFS-es is a valid and reliable instrument for assessment of fear of breast cancer among young Spanish women, even though this instrument had never been used with women as young as the ones in this sample. Nonetheless, with the exception of Secginli [16], the results obtained here do not differ from previous validation studies of the CBCFS carried out with samples of older women from different cultural contexts. Also, these results pose new questions regarding the nature of fear of breast cancer among young women and suggest this is an issue that should be explored further in future studies given the implications discussed above.

Supporting information

S1 File. Data file corresponding to the study.

(SAV)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Blanchard D, Erblich J, Montgomery GH, Bovbjerg DH. Read All About It: The Over-Representation of Breast Cancer in Popular Magazines. Preventive Medicine 2002;35(4):343–348. 10.1006/pmed.2002.1088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Vraga EK, Stefanidis A, Lamprianidis G, Croitoru A, Crooks AT, Delamater PL, et al. Cancer and Social Media: A Comparison of Traffic about Breast Cancer, Prostate Cancer, and Other Reproductive Cancers on Twitter and Instagram. Journal of Health Communication 2018;23(2):181–189. 10.1080/10810730.2017.1421730 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Gottlieb N. The age of breast cancer awareness: what is the effect of media coverage? J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93(20):1520–1522. 10.1093/jnci/93.20.1520 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Jatoi I, Miller AB. Why is breast-cancer mortality declining? The lancet oncology 2003;4(4):251–254. 10.1016/s1470-2045(03)01037-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Burke W, Olsen AH, Pinsky LE, Reynolds SE, Press NA. Misleading presentation of breast cancer in popular magazines. Eff Clin Pract 2001;4(2):58–64. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Atkin CK, Smith SW, McFeters C, Ferguson V. A Comprehensive Analysis of Breast Cancer News Coverage in Leading Media Outlets Focusing on Environmental Risks and Prevention. Journal of Health Communication 2008;13(1):3–19. 10.1080/10810730701806912 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Borland R, Donaghue N, Hill D. Illnesses that Australians most feared in 1986 and 1993. Aust J Public Health 1994;18(4):366–369. 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1994.tb00266.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Wang C, O’Neill SM, Rothrock N, Gramling R, Sen A, Acheson LS, et al. Comparison of risk perceptions and beliefs across common chronic diseases. Prev Med 2009;48(2):197–202. 10.1016/j.ypmed.2008.11.008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Consedine NS, Magai C, Krivoshekova YS, Ryzewicz L, Neugut AI. Fear, Anxiety, Worry, and Breast Cancer Screening Behavior: A Critical Review. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(4):501–510. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Champion VL, Skinner CS, Menon U, Rawl S, Giesler RB, Monahan P, et al. A breast cancer fear scale: psychometric development. J Health Psychol 2004;9(6):753–762. 10.1177/1359105304045383 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Chae J. A Three-Factor Cancer-Related Mental Condition Model and Its Relationship With Cancer Information Use, Cancer Information Avoidance, and Screening Intention. Journal of Health Communication 2015;20(10):1133–1142. 10.1080/10810730.2015.1018633 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Andersen MR, Smith R, Meischke H, Bowen D, Urban N. Breast Cancer Worry and Mammography Use by Women with and without a Family History in a Population-based Sample. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12(4):314–320. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Zhang LR, Chiarelli AM, Glendon G, Mirea L, Knight JA, Andrulis IL, et al. Worry Is Good for Breast Cancer Screening: A Study of Female Relatives from the Ontario Site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry. 2012; https://www.hindawi.com/journals/jce/2012/545062/. Accessed Feb 29, 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • 14.Caruso A, Vigna C, Gremigni P. The cancer worry scale revised for breast cancer genetic counseling. Cancer nursing. 2018. July 1;41(4):311–9. 10.1097/NCC.0000000000000511 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Moshki M, Shahgheibi S, Taymoori P, Moradi A, Roshani D, Holt CL. Psychometric properties of the mammography self-efficacy and fear of breast cancer scales in Iranian women. BMC Public Health 2017;17(1):534. 10.1186/s12889-017-4404-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Secginli S. Mammography Self-Efficacy Scale and Breast Cancer Fear Scale: Psychometric Testing of the Turkish Versions. Cancer Nursing 2012;35(5):365–373. 10.1097/NCC.0b013e3182331a9a [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Leung DYP, Wong EML, Chan CWH. Adapting Champion’s Breast Cancer Fear Scale to colorectal cancer: Psychometric testing in a sample of older Chinese adults. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 2014;18(3):281–285. 10.1016/j.ejon.2014.01.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Umeh K, Rogan‐Gibson J. Perceptions of threat, benefits, and barriers in breast self-examination amongst young asymptomatic women. British Journal of Health Psychology 2001;6(4):361–372. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Carioli G, Malvezzi M, Rodriguez T, Bertuccio P, Negri E, La Vecchia C. Trends and predictions to 2020 in breast cancer mortality in Europe. The Breast 2017;36:89–95. 10.1016/j.breast.2017.06.003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.DeSantis CE, Bray F, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Anderson BO, Jemal A. International Variation in Female Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24(10):1495–1506. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0535 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Jensen JD. Knowledge Acquisition Following Exposure to Cancer News Articles: A Test of the Cognitive Mediation Model. J Commun 2011;61(3):514–534. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Nelissen S, Beullens K, Lemal M, Bulck JVd. Predictors of Cancer Fear: The Association Between Mass Media and Fear of Cancer Among Cancer Diagnosed and Nondiagnosed Individuals. Journal of Cancer Education 2015;1(30):68–74. 10.1007/s13187-014-0705-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Champion C, Berry TR, Kingsley B, Spence JC. Pink Ribbons and Red Dresses: A Mixed Methods Content Analysis of Media Coverage of Breast Cancer and Heart Disease. Health Communication 2016;31(10):1242–1249. 10.1080/10410236.2015.1050082 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Mackenzie R, Chapman S, Holding S, Stiven A. "No Respecter of Youth": Over-representation of Young Women in Australian Television Coverage of Breast Cancer. Journal of Cancer Education; New York 2010;25(4):565–70. 10.1007/s13187-010-0083-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.DeSantis CE, Ma J, Gaudet MM, Newman LA, Miller KD, Sauer AG, et al. Breast cancer statistics, 2019. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 2019;69(6):438–451. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Fobair P, Stewart SL, Chang S, D’Onofrio C, Banks PJ, Bloom JR. Body image and sexual problems in young women with breast cancer. Psycho‐Oncology 2006;15(7):579–594. 10.1002/pon.991 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Swaine‐Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, Thorsen H, McKenna SP. Adapting quality of life instruments. Value in health 2004;7(s1):S27–S30. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2004.7s107.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Epstein J, Santo RM, Guillemin F. A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of clinical epidemiology. 2015. April 1;68(4):435–41. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.021 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Morales A, Espada JP, Carballo JL, Piqueras JA, Orgiles M. Short health anxiety inventory: factor structure and psychometric properties in Spanish adolescents. J Health Psychol 2015;20(2):123–131. 10.1177/1359105313500095 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Salkovskis PM, Rimes KA, Warwick HMC, Clark DM. The Health Anxiety Inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychological Medicine 2002;32(5):843–853. 10.1017/s0033291702005822 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abramowitz JS, Olatunji BO, Deacon BJ. Health Anxiety, Hypochondriasis, and the Anxiety Disorders. Behavior Therapy 2007;38(1):86–94. 10.1016/j.beth.2006.05.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Alberts NM, Hadjistavropoulos HD, Jones SL, Sharpe D. The Short Health Anxiety Inventory: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Anxiety Disorders 2013;27(1):68–78. 10.1016/j.janxdis.2012.10.009 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Revelle WR. psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research. 2017.
  • 34.Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software 2012;048(i02). [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: The Guilford Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Hu L, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 1999;6(1):1–55. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Nunnally JC, Bernstein IH. Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Kline RB. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling: Fourth Edition.: Guilford; 2015.
  • 39.Labrie NHM, Ludolph R, Schulz PJ. Investigating young women’s motivations to engage in early mammography screening in Switzerland: results of a cross-sectional study. BMC Cancer 2017;1(17):1–10. 10.1186/s12885-017-3180-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Berry TR, Curtin KD, Courneya KS, McGannon KR, Norris CM, Rodgers WM, et al. Heart disease and breast cancer perceptions: Ethnic differences and relationship to attentional bias. Health Psychology Open 2016;3(2). [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Torre LA, Siegel RL, Ward EM, Jemal A. Global Cancer Incidence and Mortality Rates and Trends—An Update. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2016;25(1):16–27. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-15-0578 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Hanson MD, Chen E. Socioeconomic status and health behaviors in adolescence: a review of the literature. J Behav Med 2007;30(3):263–285. 10.1007/s10865-007-9098-3 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Pollán M, Salas-Trejo L, Ascunce N. Prevención del cáncer de mama. Manual SEOM de prevención y diagnóstico precoz del cáncer: Sociedad Española de Oncología Médica (SEOM); 2017. p. 196–198.
  • 44.Erblich J, Bovbjerg DH, Norman C, Valdimarsdottir HB, Montgomery GH. It Won’t Happen to Me: Lower Perception of Heart Disease Risk among Women with Family Histories of Breast Cancer. Preventive Medicine 2000;31(6):714–721. 10.1006/pmed.2000.0765 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.DiLorenzo TA, Schnur J, Montgomery GH, Erblich J, Winkel G, Bovbjerg DH. A model of disease-specific worry in heritable disease: the influence of family history, perceived risk and worry about other illnesses. J Behav Med 2006;29(1):37–49. 10.1007/s10865-005-9039-y [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Kobayashi LC, Smith SG. Cancer fatalism, literacy, and cancer information seeking in the American public. Health Education & Behavior. 2016. August;43(4):461–70. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Miles A, Voorwinden S, Chapman S, Wardle J. Psychologic predictors of cancer information avoidance among older adults: the role of cancer fear and fatalism. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2008. August 1;17(8):1872–9. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-08-0074 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Beeken RJ, Simon AE, von Wagner C, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Cancer fatalism: deterring early presentation and increasing social inequalities?. Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Biomarkers. 2011. October 1;20(10):2127–31. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-11-0437 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

César Leal-Costa

12 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-36556

Fear of breast cancer among young Spanish women: Factor structure and psychometric properties of the Champion’s fear of breast cancer scale

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Aguirre-Camacho,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 27 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

César Leal-Costa, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note you have included a table to which you do not refer in the text of your manuscript. Please ensure that you refer to Table 3 in your text; if accepted, production will need this reference to link the reader to the Table.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In this manuscript the validation of a scale to assess ‘Fear of Breast cáncer among Young spanish women’ is presented. The manuscript is well written but there are some problems that I highlight below:

1. A very profuse introduction to the fear of breast cancer is presented in the first pages. However, this introduction does not provide data on psychometric studies that have been done on the same scale in other cultures, although these studies are cited on page 6, lines 121 to 123. There is also no information on other scales that can measure fear or anxiety even if they are not designed for this type of disease.

2. Apart from the title of the manuscript, nothing in the introduction indicates to the reader anticipate in the introduction that it is a psychometric work until page 6 where the objective is exposed. However a psychometric study should: 1) introduce the research problem, and 2) present all psychometric properties obtained in other cultures with the same scale, and similar scales that can provide information on the construct in this type of disease. In this sense, since one of the studies obtained a two-dimensional scale and the other studies are one-dimensional, the authors should draw attention to this discordant result and test both dimensional structures.

3. This study employs a forward and backward translation procedure so much sui generis. The fact that the initial team consisting of three women and three men does not guarantee that the translation of the instrument is correct. The correct procedure is that 1) a Spanish native (or more) accredited in English translate from English into Spanish, and 2) another English native (or more) with accredited knowledge of Spanish to translate from Spanish into English. So both versions in English (original and translated) are compared and the differences are resolved by the research team and the translators. The procedure used in this study does not guarantee a correct translation. Of course, the translation of item 1 is quite unfortunate if it was used with that wording.

4. Although it appears among the limitations of the study, a serious deficiency is that the collected sample does not contain clinical cases (i.e. women with breast cancer) and is also a university sample, which clearly signs any generalization of the results of the study.

5. Statment such as 'The total score is a sum score of all 8 items' must be justified. Of course, as long as the dimensionality of the scale is not known, it is not possible to make such a statement. In any case, the fact that a set of items load into a specific dimension does not justify adding the scores obtained on each item to obtain a total score. These scores are counts, not measures.

6. The original version has items with five categories. However, it would have been very interesting to research whether or not this number of categories is appropriate in the Spanish version. There are measurement models that can shed a lot of light on the appropriate number of categories on a scale, and whether the distance between categories is well established.

7. This study does not investigate the ceiling and floor effect on items and total scores. When there is ceiling and floor effect, the reliability of the scores is severely threatened.

8. On page 11, line 218 the following title appears 'Scale reliability'. It would be desirable to be careful with this statement, since in the classic test model, scales (psychometric tests) are not reliable or valid. Reliability and validity is from scores and can change (in fact they do) from sample to sample. Therefore, it is more appropriate to talk about reliability of scores.

9. You should be more careful when moving a result from the table to the text. For example, the table shows that 14.93% had low scores, but in the text (page 10, line 208) 14.89% appears.

10. All items have homogeneity indices above .30, but the recommendation of Nunnally and Berstein and many other references in psychometrics is that those values should not go beyond .70. A homogeneity index above that value is an indicator that each item alone serves to measure construct, and all other items only provide redundant information. That is, you have to be careful with the interpretations of these homogeneity indices.

11. Page 11, line 223. ‘the Pearson product-moment corelation coeficient’ can be described as ‘test-retest reliability coefficient’.

12. Page 12, line 232, the title is 'convergent validity'. The correct title should be 'concurrent validity'. A convergent validity coefficient can only arise from a multimethod-multitrait matrix, and that study is not presented in this manuscript.

13. Page 12, line 232 says 'factor loadings range from .74 to .86' when you should say '... range from .74 to .81'.

14. Page 13, line 243 say ‘… ranges from .48 to .73’ when the correct results are ‘ranges from .48 to .65’.

15. Lines 250 through 253 on page 13 attempt to explain why it is not possible to test a two-factor solution. In my opinion, the results should be offered for future readers to interpret themselves.

16. Finally, reference 46 does not appear in the reference list.

Reviewer #2: The theme of the article is innovative and brings really very interesting information to the topic of study, as well as clinical implications for the population under study. I encourage the authors to continue in this line.

To improve the quality of the article I make the following suggestions:

INTRODUCTION:

In this paper, authors are focused about fear of breast cancer among women. Is it possible to explain more about previous studies in this field (with Spanish samples or about another type of cancer)

Is this the first study about this topic? Can we find cultural differences about fear of breast cancer?

DISCUSSION: Extend about limitations such as sample (psychology students) and clinical implications.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: María José Quiles Sebastián

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 5;16(4):e0249562. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249562.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


27 Feb 2021

Reviewer #1:

In this manuscript the validation of a scale to assess ‘Fear of Breast cancer among Young Spanish women’ is presented. The manuscript is well written but there are some problems that I highlight below:

1. A very profuse introduction to the fear of breast cancer is presented in the first pages. However, this introduction does not provide data on psychometric studies that have been done on the same scale in other cultures, although these studies are cited on page 6, lines 121 to 123. There is also no information on other scales that can measure fear or anxiety even if they are not designed for this type of disease.

-We have reorganized and reduced the length of the introduction. The introduction now includes information regarding the different approaches that had been used to assess fear/worry/anxiety related to breast cancer before the development of the Champion Breast Cancer Fear Scale (CBCFS), which can be found at the end of the second paragraph (oage 3, line 63 onwards). Also, the introduction now includes data on the psychometric properties and factor structure of the CBCFS and subsequent validation studies; this information can be found in the fourth paragraph (page 4, line 80) and the newly added Table 1 (page 5).

2. Apart from the title of the manuscript, nothing in the introduction indicates to the reader anticipate in the introduction that it is a psychometric work until page 6 where the objective is exposed. However a psychometric study should: 1) introduce the research problem, and 2) present all psychometric properties obtained in other cultures with the same scale, and similar scales that can provide information on the construct in this type of disease. In this sense, since one of the studies obtained a two-dimensional scale and the other studies are one-dimensional, the authors should draw attention to this discordant result and test both dimensional structures.

-We have reorganized the introduction to highlight this is mainly a psychometric work. We introduce and describe the CBCFS in the third paragraph (page 4, line 69) and the subsequent cultural adaptations of this scale in the fourth paragraph (page 4, line 80). At the end of the fourth paragraph we hint what the research problem is, namely, that currently no Spanish version of the CBCFS is available. The objective of the study is now introduced right after this, in the fifth paragraph of the introduction (page 5, line 97). Again, information about the psychometric properties obtained in other cultures with the same scale can now be found in Table 1. We also tested both dimensional structures (one- and two-factors) obtained in previous studies and include information about these analyses at the very end of the Results section (page 14, lines 259-263).

3. This study employs a forward and backward translation procedure so much sui generis. The fact that the initial team consisting of three women and three men does not guarantee that the translation of the instrument is correct. The correct procedure is that 1) a Spanish native (or more) accredited in English translate from English into Spanish, and 2) another English native (or more) with accredited knowledge of Spanish to translate from Spanish into English. So both versions in English (original and translated) are compared and the differences are resolved by the research team and the translators. The procedure used in this study does not guarantee a correct translation. Of course, the translation of item 1 is quite unfortunate if it was used with that wording.

-The Forward/Backward Translation Method is often referred to as “the gold standard” in the translation of psychometric instruments. However, there is really no evidence in support of this view (Acquadro et al., 2008; Epstein et al., 1015) (please see references 27 and 28). Therefore, with all due respect, we do not agree with the reviewer that the Forward/Backward Translation Method would have constituted “the correct procedure” to follow.

The translation procedure used in this study (i.e. The Dual Panel Method) constitutes an entirely different approach and one of the existing alternatives to using the Forward/Backward Translation Method. Swaine‐Verdier et al. (2004) (please see reference 27) make a strong case against using the “Forward/Backward Translation Method”. Instead, they describe The Dual Panel Method, which has been extensively used in previous research.

We have further clarified this in the text (page 7, lines 139 – 146).

Acquadro C, Conway K, Hareendran A, Aaronson N, European Regulatory Issues and Quality of Life Assessment (ERIQA) Group. Literature review of methods to translate health‐related quality of life questionnaires for use in multinational clinical trials. Value in Health. 2008 May;11(3):509-21.

Epstein, J., Santo, R. M., & Guillemin, F. (2015). A review of guidelines for cross-cultural adaptation of questionnaires could not bring out a consensus. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 68(4), 435-441.

Swaine-Verdier A, Doward LC, Hagell P, Thorsen H, McKenna SP. Adapting quality of life instruments. Value in health. 2004 Sep 1;7:S27-30.

4. Although it appears among the limitations of the study, a serious deficiency is that the collected sample does not contain clinical cases (i.e. women with breast cancer) and is also a university sample, which clearly signs any generalization of the results of the study.

-With all due respect, we do not agree with the reviewer that the absence of clinical cases in the sample constitutes a “serious deficiency”. As we describe in the sixth paragraph from the introduction (page 5, line 101), the vast majority of studies examining fear of breast cancer have been conducted with samples of cancer-free women in the context of breast cancer screening (please see reference 9). All previous versions of the CBCFS have also been validated within samples of cancer-free women in the context of breast cancer screening.

Nonetheless, we do agree with the reviewer in that a sample of university students constitutes a limitation, and we do acknowledge and discuss why this may be the case. However, arguably, the significance of this limitation also depends on the type of studies that use this scale in the future. For example, the sample used in this study would be very different compared to a sample of older women in the context of breast cancer screening, or a sample of women diagnosed with breast cancer. However, we do plan to continue using this scale within samples of women of the same age range as the one used in this study, as we are specifically interested in learning about the nature of fear of breast cancer early on in women’s life. Nevertheless, we understand that we would still need to conduct further analyses to ensure the scale works well.

5. Statments such as 'The total score is a sum score of all 8 items' must be justified. Of course, as long as the dimensionality of the scale is not known, it is not possible to make such a statement. In any case, the fact that a set of items load into a specific dimension does not justify adding the scores obtained on each item to obtain a total score. These scores are counts, not measures.

-We kept the scoring method that was used in the original study given that our intention was validating the original instrument. However, we agree with the point raised by the reviewer, using a sum score (or an alternative scoring model) should be adequately justified. We have calculated the factor scores (considering the one-factor model that was fitted to the data) and have obtained an almost perfect correlation between the two types of scores (r= 0.99) which supports the use of sum scoring for this scale. We have added this additional analysis to the manuscript (page 14, lines 264-267)

6. The original version has items with five categories. However, it would have been very interesting to research whether or not this number of categories is appropriate in the Spanish version. There are measurement models that can shed a lot of light on the appropriate number of categories on a scale, and whether the distance between categories is well established.

-We decided to maintain the number of response categories that was used in the original scale for this validation. We did not consider exploring the possibility of using a different number as there is evidence that shows that, across scale types and demographic groups: 1) using less than 5 categories (i.e. using 2 to 4 categories) results in poorer reliability, and 2) there is no clear psychometric advantage in using 6 or more response categories (Simms et al., 2019).

Simms, L. J., Zelazny, K., Williams, T. F., & Bernstein, L. (2019). Does the number of response options matter? Psychometric perspectives using personality questionnaire data. Psychological assessment, 31(4), 557.

7. This study does not investigate the ceiling and floor effect on items and total scores. When there is ceiling and floor effect, the reliability of the scores is severely threatened.

-In the initial stages of data analysis, we inspected the histograms and the skewness of the distribution of scores of each item to rule out the possibility of floor/ceiling effects that could impact the results. We agree with the reviewer that this information (the distribution of scores) is relevant and should be reported in the manuscript. We have now added additional information in Table 4 (page 13) regarding the percentage of people who scored in the lowest/highest value in each category. We did not find a significant proportion of responses at either the low or high end of the Likert scale.

8. On page 11, line 218 the following title appears 'Scale reliability'. It would be desirable to be careful with this statement, since in the classic test model, scales (psychometric tests) are not reliable or valid. Reliability and validity is from scores and can change (in fact they do) from sample to sample. Therefore, it is more appropriate to talk about reliability of scores.

-Indeed, reliability and validity are properties of the scores and not scale properties. We have changed this in the manuscript (page 13, line 241).

9. You should be more careful when moving a result from the table to the text. For example, the table shows that 14.93% had low scores, but in the text (page 10, line 208) 14.89% appears.

-We apologize for this mistake. This has been corrected. Thank you for noticing!

10. All items have homogeneity indices above .30, but the recommendation of Nunnally and Berstein and many other references in psychometrics is that those values should not go beyond .70. A homogeneity index above that value is an indicator that each item alone serves to measure construct, and all other items only provide redundant information. That is, you have to be careful with the interpretations of these homogeneity indices.

-Yes, when these values reach levels beyond 0.7, we need to consider the possibility of items being redundant. We have added a clarification regarding the interpretation of these values in the manuscript (page 12, lines 227-230).

11. Page 11, line 223. ‘the Pearson product-moment corelation coeficient’ can be described as ‘test-retest reliability coefficient’.

Yes, the latter term is more appropriate for a scale validation. We have changed this in the manuscript (page 12, line 231).

12. Page 12, line 232, the title is 'convergent validity'. The correct title should be 'concurrent validity'. A convergent validity coefficient can only arise from a multimethod-multitrait matrix, and that study is not presented in this manuscript.

We have made this change in the manuscript (page 13, line 241).

13. Page 12, line 232 says 'factor loadings range from .74 to .86' when you should say '... range from .74 to .81'.

-We apologize for this mistake. According to Table 4, the factor loadings actually range from .70 to .81. This has been corrected in the text (page 12, line 242). Thank you for noticing!

14. Page 13, line 243 say ‘… ranges from .48 to .73’ when the correct results are ‘ranges from .48 to .65’.

-Again, we apologize for this mistake. This has been corrected. Thank you for noticing!

15. Lines 250 through 253 on page 13 attempt to explain why it is not possible to test a two-factor solution. In my opinion, the results should be offered for future readers to interpret themselves.

-We added more information regarding the estimation of the two-factor model with our data. When attempting to estimate a two-factor structure with our data, the estimated correlations between factor 1 and factor 2 are too high (r > 1.00) which makes a two-factor model estimation infeasible. This is an indication that both factors are indistinguishable and should be combined into one single factor. We added this clarification to the manuscript (page 14, line 259).

16. Finally, reference 46 does not appear in the reference list.

-We apologize for this mistake. There was not in fact a reference 46, given that we had skipped the citation 44 in the text. Thus, “[45,46]” has been changed to “[44,45]” in page 16 line 326. Thank you for noticing!

Reviewer #2:

The theme of the article is innovative and brings really very interesting information to the topic of study, as well as clinical implications for the population under study. I encourage the authors to continue in this line.

We thank the reviewer for her comments and encouragement!

To improve the quality of the article I make the following suggestions:

INTRODUCTION:

1-In this paper, authors are focused about fear of breast cancer among women. Is it possible to explain more about previous studies in this field (with Spanish samples or about another type of cancer)

To our knowledge, no previous studies had focused on fear of breast cancer (or any other type of cancer) specifically among young women. As we mention in the introduction, fear of breast cancer has been most often studied among women of at least 40 years of age, in the context of breast cancer screening. In the second paragraph of the introduction (page 3, line 53), we mention the relevance of fear of breast cancer for breast cancer screening, as well as the conceptual and methodological problems found in previous studies within this area of research. We also clarify that, to our knowledge, fear of breast cancer had not been studied within Spanish samples. For these reasons, we do present the reasons as to why it is important to study fear of breast cancer among young women (page 5, line 101).

2-Is this the first study about this topic? Can we find cultural differences about fear of breast cancer?

-Yes, to our knowledge this is the first study examining fear of breast cancer among very young women. Therefore, any potential cultural differences in fear of breast cancer among women of this age group are yet to be explored.

To our knowledge, fear of breast cancer among older women has not been studied from a cross-cultural perspective. Therefore, it is still not clear which cultural factors may account for heightened fear of breast cancer. Interest in examining fear of breast cancer has been mostly limited to determining its role as a factor interfering with or promoting screening behavior.

DISCUSSION:

3-Extend about limitations such as sample (psychology students) and clinical implications.

-We have extended both the paragraph on limitations (page 16, line 306) and clinical implications (page 17, line 323).

Decision Letter 1

César Leal-Costa

22 Mar 2021

Fear of breast cancer among young Spanish women: factor structure and psychometric properties of the Champion breast cancer fear scale

PONE-D-20-36556R1

Dear Dr. Aguirre-Camacho,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

César Leal-Costa, Ph. D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have adequately responded to all the requirements made in the review. The procedure used for translating the scale into Spanish may be very novel but it is not clear that it is a clear overcoming of the forward-backward translation method. Psychometric analysis is sound within the traditional methodology used with factor analysis and the classic test model. The authors should have been bolder and use Rasch's model to investigate the number of appropriate categories on this scale. I would have given the manuscript a differential value.

Reviewer #2: Los autores han respondido de manera satisfactoria a las recomendaciones realizadas, por lo que considero que el manuscrito cumple satisfactoriamente los requerimientos de la revista y puede ser aceptado para su publicación.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: María-José Quiles-Sebastián

Acceptance letter

César Leal-Costa

24 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-36556R1

Fear of breast cancer among young Spanish women: factor structure and psychometric properties of the Champion breast cancer fear scale

Dear Dr. Aguirre-Camacho:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. César Leal-Costa

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Data file corresponding to the study.

    (SAV)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES