Turkish Adaptation of Attention Function Index: A Validity and Reliability Study

Year 2021, Volume: 11 Issue: 2, 215 - 219, 30.06.2021

Neşe Uysal , Gülcan Bağçivan , Filiz Ünal Toprak , Yeter Soylu Bektaş Kaya

https://doi.org/10.33808/clinexphealthsci.710870

Abstract

Objective: Many cancer survivors have cognitive problems with concentration and memory after cancer treatment. The Attention Function Index (AFI) is a tool developed to evaluate cognitive processes in cancer patients. This study aimed to evaluate the validity and reliability of AFI in Turkish.

Methods: This methodological study was conducted with one hundred breast cancer survivors. Data were collected using the information form, AFI, and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life (EORTC QLQ-C30) scale. Internal consistency, test-retest, and item-total scores were analyzed to assess the reliability of the AFI Turkish form.

Results: The internal consistency coefficient (Cronbach’s alpha) was 0.89 for the Turkish version of AFI. Confirmatory factor analysis for construct validity revealed that the original three-factor structure of AFI was not confirmed, but the two-factor structure of the AFI was confirmed by the fit indices. In the correlation analysis for criterion validity, a statistically significant and positive relationship was found between AFI total scores and EORTC QLQ-C30 total scores. There was a strong positive correlation between test and retest scores (r = 0.524; p <0.01).

Conclusions: In this study, it was determined that the two-factor, 10-item version of the AFI, which was evaluated for validity and reliability, was well-matched with the sample in which the scale was administered. The Turkish version of AFI is a valid and reliable tool for breast cancer survivors. The scale tested in cancer survivors and can be used in clinical practice.

Keywords

Attention function, breast cancer, survivor, validity and reliability

Project Number

-

References

• [1] Robbins TW. Cognition: The ultimate brain function. Neuropsychopharmacology 2011; 36(1): 1–2
• [2] Jean-Pierre P, Winters PC, Ahles TA, Antoni M, P, Daniel Armstrong F, Penedo F, et al. Prevalence of self-reported memory problems in adult cancer survivors: a national cross-section study J Oncol Pract. 2011;8:30-4.
• [3] Andreis F, Ferri M, Mazzocchi M, Meriggi F, Rizzi A, Rota L, et al. Lack of a chemobrain effect for adjuvant FOLFOX chemotherapy in colon cancer patients. A pilot study. Support Care Cancer. 2013;21:583-90.
• [4] Moore HC. An overview of chemotherapy-related cognitive dysfunction, or 'chemobrain'. Oncology 2014;28(9):797-804.
• [5] Wefel JS, Kesler SR, Noll KR, Schagen SB. Clinical characteristics, pathophysiology, and management of noncentral nervous system cancer related cognitive impairment in adults. CA Cancer J Clin. 2015;65(2): 123–138.
• [6] Janelsins MC, Kesler SR, Ahles TA, Morrow GR. Prevalence, mechanisms, and management of cancer-related cognitive impairment. Int Rev Psychiatry. 2014;26(1):102–113.
• [7] Caeyenberghs M. Longitudinal assessment of chemotherapy-induced changes in brain and cognitive functioning: A systematic review. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews 2018; 92 (2018):304-317.
• [8] James W. The principles of psychology. New York: Cosimo; 2007.
• [9] Cimprich B, So H, Ronis DL, Trask C. Pre-treatment factors related to cognitive functioning in women newly diagnosed with breast cancer. Psycho-Oncology 2005; 14(1):70-8.
• [10] Cimprich B, Visovatti M, Ronis DL. The Attentional Function Index – a self-report cognitive measure. Psycho-Oncology 2011;20(2):194-202.
• [11] Mackie MA, Van Dam NT, Fan J. Cognitive control and attentional functions. Brain Cogn 2013; 82(3): 301–312.
• [12] Lange M, Joly F. How to identify and manage cognitive dysfunction after breast cancer treatment. Journal of Oncology Practice 2017; 13(12).
• [13] Kitahata R, Nakajima, S Uchida H. Self-rated cognitive functions following chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a 6-month prospective study. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment 2017; 13:2489–2496.
• [14] Demirci S, Eser E, Ozsaran Z, Tankisi D, Aras AB, Özaydemir G, Anacak Y. Validation of the Turkish versions of EORTC QLQ-C30 and BR23 modules in breast cancer patients. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev .2011;12(5):1283-7.
• [15] Stark MA. Relationship of psychosocial tasks of pregnancy and attentional functioning in the third trimester. Res Nurs Health. 2001; 24:194-202.
• [16] Dutra CKR, Guirardello EB. Validation of the Brazilian version of the Attentional Function Index. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem 2013;21(2):604-9.
• [17] Utne I, Grov EK, Kjerland LE, Rønning M, Rodrigues-Aranda C, Rasmussen HL. et al. Translation and cultural adaptaion of Attentional Functional İndex. Sykepleien Forskning 2017; 12 (e-64646).
• [18] Dutra CKR, Guirardello EB. Validation of the Brazilian version of the Attentional Function Index. Rev. Latino-Am. Enfermagem. 2013;21(2):604-9.
• [19] Alpar R. Applied statistics with examples from sports, health and education sciences validity and reability. Ankara: Detay Publishing; 2011 (in Turkish).
• [20] Esin N. Data collection methods and tools & reliability and validity of data collection tools. In: Erdoğan S, Nahcivan N, Esin N, ed. Nursing Research. İstanbul: Nobel Medicine Publishing; 2014 (in Turkish).
• [21] Kline PR. [Hypothesis testing]. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling. 3rd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 2011. p.204-
• [22] Ahles TA, Root JC, Ryan EL. Cancer and cancer treatment-associated cognitive change: an update on the state of the science. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2012;30(30):3675–86.
• [23] Von Ah D, Tallman EF. Perceived cognitive function in breast cancer survivors: evaluating relationships with objective cognitive performance and other symptoms using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy and Cognitive Function Instrument. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management 2015; 49(4).