Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This study aimed to create a measurement tool for the determination of university students’ health beliefs about testicular cancer (TC) and self-examination. This is a methodological and cross-sectional study. The study sample included 425 university students. Consents and approvals were obtained from the relevant institutions and the ethics committee prior to the research. The data were collected using an interview form that included questions about descriptive characteristics, family history of TC, and knowledge, beliefs, and practice of self-examination. The health belief model including 41 questions about self-examination and the interview form were administered to the students in their classrooms at a suitable time. Principal components analysis and varimax rotation were used for the examination of the structures of the factors. Accordingly, factor patterns, self-values, and the variance percentages they explained were evaluated. The average age of the participants is 22.2 ± 2.3 (min = 17; max = 40). Of them, 98.8% of the participants are single (n = 420). Of them, 56.2% have heard about TC before, and 18.4% said they were informed about TC. Factor loading of the items in the first factor was 0.64 to 0.89, while it was 0.48 to 0.75 for the items in the second factor, 0.50 to 0.87 for the items in the third factor, 0.37 to 0.68 for the items in the fourth factor, 0.51 to 0.68 for the items in the fifth factor, and 0.65 to 0.79 for the items in the sixth factor. The health belief model scale may be used in TC screenings for males to measure susceptibility, seriousness, health motivation, barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy.

Keywords

validity reliability testicular self-examination health belief model

Introduction

Urogenital system cancers are one of the most common cancer types among males. Although accounting for only 1% to 2% of male cancers, testicular cancer (TC) is the most commonly diagnosed cancer in men aged between 15 and 35 years in the United States and in most European populations. The American Cancer Society’s estimates for TC in the United States for 2015 are that about 8,430 new cases of TC will be diagnosed and about 380 men will die of TC (American Cancer Society, 2015). Nigam, Aschebrook-Kilfoy, Shikanov, and Eggene (2015) reported that, between 1992 and 2009, TC incidence in the United States and Europe continued to increase. Urogenital system cancers account for 4.72% of all cancer cases in Turkey, while 1.3% of male neoplasms are TC (Aydın, 2007). Epidemiological risk factors for the development of testicular tumors are a history of cryptorchidism or undescended testicle, high maternal estrogen levels during fetal development, Klinefelter syndrome, family history, a tumor or testicular intraepithelial neoplasm in the other testicle, younger age (15-34 years), White race/ethnicity, and infertility (Albers et al., 2015; Dieckmann, Loy, & Buttner, 1993; Osterlind et al., 1991).

While TC is a relatively rare type of cancer, it still has a very significant place in urological oncology because it serves as a model curable cancer in oncology. Thus, early diagnosis and treatment are very important in TC. It is possible to cure TC completely if it is diagnosed at an early stage. After an early diagnosis, there is a 99% possibility of 5 more years of life (Bahrami, Ro, & Ayala, 2007; Lechner, Oenema, & Nooijer, 2002). The primary methods of diagnosis are ultrasonography, some blood tests, and magnetic resonance imaging (American Cancer Society, 2015). To be able to make an early diagnosis, individuals should be conscious about this issue and be able to do self-examination (Ceylan, Yılmaz, Yıldız, Kuş, & Gönülalan, 2006). The reasons for the delays in diagnosis and treatment are young males’ lack of knowledge about the danger of TC and self-examination, which is very important for early diagnosis. Although the frequency of TC has increased, many studies have reported that young males are not informed about this tumor and its frequency in their age-group. Young men do not know about its general symptoms and their rate of doing self-examination is very low (Ceylan et al., 2006; Lechner et al., 2002; Rudberg, Nilsson, Wikblad, & Carlsson, 2005). A study conducted with 7,304 university students in Europe revealed that only 3% of students did self-examination regularly every month (Wardle et al., 1994). A study conducted in Iran reported that only 7.9% of students did self-examination (Ramim, Mousavi, Rosatmnia, Bazyar, & Ghanbari, 2014).

TC is not a preventable disease; however, a regular examination of testicles for swelling can lead to an early diagnosis. Thus, all males between 15 and 35 years of age should do this examination every month and identify the symptoms of TC. The only way to diagnose TC at an early stage is to do regular self-examination. Although self-examination creates a 90% possibility of early diagnosis (Cronholm, Mao, Nguyen, & Paris, 2009; Göçgeldi & Koçak, 2010; Rudberg et al., 2005), it is not effective in diagnosing early stage TC on its own. It definitely requires examination by a physician and the administration of radiological and pathological tests. Self-examination is still an important health promotion behavior, like breast self-examination in diagnosing breast cancer. If young males are trained about self-examination, this will create awareness about the early diagnosis of TC. Individuals doing self-examination will exhibit a health promoting behavior by taking care of themselves. It is commonly believed that cancer incidence increases in direct proportion with age. This leads young people to have lower levels of learning and adopting behaviors related to early diagnosis. Teaching and acquiring health protective behaviors at a young age will have a positive influence on attaining individual responsibility of protecting one’s self from cancer and other preventable or curable diseases.

Beliefs influence the health behaviors that determine the efficiency of the methods used for the early diagnosis of TC. The health belief model (HBM) is a useful theoretical basis for self-examination practices (Levi, Lucchini, Negri, Boyle, & La Vecchia, 2004). The HBM explains the relationship between a person’s beliefs and behaviors and the effect of personal motivation on health behaviors (Cummings, Jette, & Rosenstock, 1978). The HBM defines the motivation for an individual’s health behaviors, and particularly the conditions that affect protective behaviors. According to the HBM, health behavior, which is an integration of individual perceptions and values that leads a person to a specific end, is directly related to the formation of diseases (Janz & Becker, 1987).

The HBM was created by Hochbaum, Kegeles, Leventhal, and Rosenstock in 1950. Some concepts thought to influence health beliefs and behaviors were added to this model later. The HBM claims that individuals’ health behaviors are affected by their beliefs, values, and attitudes. Identifying problematic beliefs and attitudes will make it possible to decide on health training or therapies more correctly. The factors that determine the possibility of health protective behaviors emerging in the HBM are the following: (1) perception of susceptibility or sensitivity: individuals’ perception of personal risks or sensitivities regarding a disease or health issues; (2) seriousness and caring: taking the outcomes of a disease seriously; (3) benefit: individuals’ belief in the benefit of protective behavior suggested to mitigate symptoms or prevent a disease; (4) barriers: perceived barriers to adopting new behaviors and adapting to situations. Self-efficacy and motivation perception were incorporated into the model later: (5) self-efficacy: individuals’ belief in their capability of successfully taking an initiative; (6) health motivation: individual beliefs and behaviors required for holistic health (Gözüm & Capik, 2014; Strecher & Rosenstock, 1997).

The HBM has been used by many researchers to explain health protective behaviors in diseases such as breast cancer, cervical cancer, colorectal cancer, osteoporosis, and diabetes (Champion & Scott, 1997; Guvenc, Akyuz, & Açikel, 2011; Hurley, 1990; Kim, Horan, Gendler, & Patel, 1991; Rawl et al., 2001). Champion used the HBM in breast cancer screenings (Champion & Scott, 1997). Self-examination is a health promotion behavior that creates awareness and can guide the early diagnosis of TC. Nurses play a significant role in teaching the early symptoms of cancer and the ways to identify these symptoms. Nurses can also research patient attitudes and health behaviors, and nursing initiatives can be developed to change these attitudes and increase beneficial health behaviors (Champion, 1987; Clemen, Mcguire, & Eigsti, 2002).

TC starts at an early age, and the risk group mainly consists of adolescents. This indicates that nurses should be informed about self-examination and related health beliefs in school nursing practices. Male health is too frequently disregarded. Health nursing staff should develop male health implementations for all age-groups and pay attention to this issue. This will lead to an increase in public health. The identification of health beliefs about TC and self-examination, which are included in early diagnosis, will create a significant awareness about male health and enable further research to improve it.

This study aimed to create a measurement tool for the determination of university students’ health beliefs about TC and self-examination.

The research questions are the following:

What is the validity and reliability of Health Belief Scale that measures university students’ beliefs and attitudes?

Do students’ self-examination habits influence their health beliefs?

Method

This is a methodological and cross-sectional study. It was conducted in collaboration with male university students in Eskisehir, Turkey, in 2014.

Study Sample

The study sample included 459 of 542 university students. The students were invited to participate in the study, informed about the subject, and volunteers were chosen using improbable sampling. The aim of this research was described to these students in their class. They participated as voluntary at this research. In this research, 34 of the students made errors on their data collection forms. These students were excluded from the study, and thus 425 students participated in the research. The participants were informed that they could withdraw at any time and that their responses would be anonymous and confidential. Consents and approvals were obtained from the relevant institutions and the ethics committee prior to the research (Ethics Committee Decision No. 672).

Data Collection Tools

The data were collected using an interview form that included questions about descriptive characteristics, family history of TC, and knowledge and practice of self-examination.

Item Selection

This study analyzed the research that created measurement tools for breast cancer, cervical cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, and colorectal cancer based on the Health Belief Scale (Çapık & Gözüm, 2011; Champion & Scott, 1997; Guvenc et al., 2011; Hurley, 1990; Kim et al., 1991; Rawl et al., 2001). The studies in the relevant literature mainly evaluated six basic concepts of HBM: susceptibility, caring, benefit, barriers, self-efficacy, and health motivation. Based on these concepts, the authors created an item pool including 51 items about health beliefs about TC and self-examination. The interview form was assessed by six specialists, two urologists, two public nurses, one physiologist, and one psychologist. Some items were excluded from the form after consulting experts, and two items were added—“TC would end my sex life” and “TC causes infertility”—at the suggestion of the urologists. These two items had never before been used in scales. The final version of the form included 41 questions.

Instruments

The HBM includes six subscales: (1) susceptibility, (2) seriousness, (3) benefit, (4) barriers, (5) self-efficacy in self-examination practices, and (6) health motivation. This is a 5-point Likert-type scale with the following responses: 5 = Strongly agree, 4 = Agree, 3 = Undecided, 2 = Disagree, and 1 = Strongly disagree. Higher scores on the susceptibility, seriousness, health motivation, benefits, and self-efficacy subscales indicate a positive situation, while higher scores on the barriers subscale indicate a negative situation since those with a high level of perceived barriers would not do TC screening. There is no total score on the scale; the scores for each subdimension are calculated and assessed separately. The necessary permission to use the Champion Health Belief Model Scale was obtained from Victoria Champion in 2014.

Data Collection Procedure

The final version of the interview form was administered to a group of 20 students as a pilot test. The data collected from this group were evaluated separately. After the pilot test, the authors decided that the form did not require any changes. The HBM including 41 questions about self-examination and the interview form were administered to the students in their classrooms at a suitable time. The scale takes approximately 15 minutes to complete.

Data Analysis

The IBM SPSS 21.0 program was used to analyze the data. The author made psychometric measurements using explanatory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha reliability analysis. Reliability was also assessed by interpreting the subscale correlations between all items. Items with less than r = .30 correlation among subscale items were excluded. Principal components analysis and varimax rotation were used for the examination of the structures of the factors. Accordingly, factor patterns, self-values, and the variance percentages they explained were evaluated.

Results

Descriptive Features

The average age of the participants was 22.2 ± 2.3 years (minimum = 17; maximum = 40). Of them, 98.8% of the participants are single (n = 420). Of them, 56.2% have heard about TC before, and 18.4% said they were informed about TC. Of them, 2.8% knew about self-examination, and 1.9% did self-examinations. Only 59.3% of the students said that they thought self-examination was important for early diagnosis of TC.

Validity and Reliability

The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin and Barlett tests were done before the explanatory factor analysis. The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin measurement of sampling adequacy was 0.84, and the Barlett test results were quite significant (χ² = 7969.789, df = 780, p = .000). The factor analysis of the 41-item HBM Self-examination Scale reported that six factors were important. Item 11 (I can live 5 more years at most if I have TC.), Item 24 (Doing self-examination means doing something good for myself.), Item 25 (Doing self-examination every month will help me find any lumps at an early stage.), and Item 32 (I am afraid of doing self-examination incorrectly.) were excluded from the scale since the correlation between each item and the entire scale was under 0.30. The other items had appropriate correlations with the entire scale. After these items were excluded, the final form of the scale consisted of 37 items (Table 1).

Table 1.

Item Analysis and Internal Consistency of HBM Self-Examination.

Scale	Item mean	SD	Corrected item–total correlation	Cronbach’s alpha
Susceptibility
1. The possibility that I have testicular cancer is very high.	2.8	0.9	0.74	.88
2. The possibility that I will have testicular cancer in a few years is very high.	2.5	1.0	0.83
3. I feel that I will have testicular cancer in some part of my life.	2.5	0.9	0.78
4. I fear dying of testicular cancer.	2.6	1.1	0.58
5. In comparison to a male peer, the possibility that I have testicular cancer is very high.	2.4	1.0	0.69
Seriousness
6. The thought of testicular cancer scares me.	3.1	1.3	0.62	.86
7. My heartbeat gets faster when I think of testicular cancer.	2.7	1.2	0.60
8. I will suffer from various problems for a long period of time if I have testicular cancer.	3.2	1.1	0.68
9. Having testicular cancer will threaten my relationship with my wife/partner.	3.1	1.1	0.56
10. If I have testicular cancer, my whole life will change.	3.1	1.1	0.68
11. Testicular cancer is a hopeless disease.	2.7	1.0	0.46
12. Having testicular cancer would put my financial security in danger.	2.8	1.0	0.52
13. Testicular cancer would put my future professional life in danger.	2.8	1.1	0.59
14. Testicular cancer would end my sexual life.	2.9	1.1	0.58
15. If I have testicular cancer, I will be infertile.	2.9	0.9	0.42
Benefits and health motivation
16. I search for new information to improve my health.	3.6	1.2	0.65	.87
17. Finding out my health problems at an early stage is important to me.	3.9	1.2	0.80
18. Staying healthy is very important to me.	4.0	1.2	0.81
19. I think it is important to do things that benefit my health.	3.9	1.2	0.80
20. If I do self-examination every month, I will be less likely to die of testicular cancer.	3.4	1.0	0.45
21. I would have a successful testicular cancer treatment if I find a lump by TSE at an early stage.	3.3	1.0	0.50
Barriers
25. I find it boring to do TSE every month.	2.7	0.9	0.40	.82
26. It takes a long time to do TSE.	2.7	0.8	0.50
27. Testicular self-examination is painful.	2.8	0.8	0.52
28. If I do TSE, my family will make fun of me.	2.2	1.0	0.58
29. It is difficult to remember to do TSE.	2.7	0.8	0.53
30. I do not have the privacy required to do TSE.	2.3	1.0	0.52
31. If I have a health professional do my testicular examination, I will not need to do self-examination.	2.9	1.0	0.39
32. I do not do self-examination since I am afraid of finding something (a lump).	2.4	1.0	0.62
33. I have more important problems than doing self-examination.	2.7	1.1	0.44
Self-efficacy
34. I know how to do self-examination.	2.6	1.3	0.39	.68
35. I can do TSE correctly.	2.5	1.1	0.51
36. I can find a lump in my testicles by doing self-examination.	2.7	1.0	0.55
37. I can say that I have a problem in my testicles by doing self-examination.	2.6	1.0	0.45
Health motivation
22. I eat a balanced diet.	3.3	1.1	0.49	.64
23. I exercise at least three times a week.	3.0	1.2	0.44
24. I have medical checkups regularly even if I am not ill.	2.7	1.0	0.42

Note. HBM = health behavior model; TSE = testicular self-examination.

Cronbach’s alpha reliability coefficient was calculated for each subdimension. Cronbach’s alpha value was .88 in the susceptibility subdimension, .86 in seriousness, .87 in the benefit and health motivation subdimension, .82 in the barriers subdimension, and .68 in self-efficacy subdimension, and .64 in the health motivation subdimension (Table 1).

The key components analysis of the scale revealed that six factors had self-values above 1. Of the factors revealed by varimax rotation, the first one explained 6% of the total variance, the second explained 18.7%, the third explained 12.8%, the fourth explained 7.2%, the fifth explained 4.8%, and the sixth explained 4.5%. The variance explained by all six factors is 53.8%. The factor analysis identified that the first factor included 5 items, the second factor had 10, the third 6, the fourth 9, the fifth 4, and the sixth factor had 3 items. Factor load of the items in the first factor was 0.64 to 0.89, while it was 0.48 to 0.75 for the items in the second factor, 0.50 to 0.87 for the items in the third factor, 0.37 to 0.68 for the items in the fourth factor, 0.51 to 0.68 for the items in the fifth factor, and 0.65 to 0.79 for the items in the sixth factor (Table 2).

Table 2.

Rotated Factor Analysis of Adapted Champion’s Health Belief Model Scale for Testicular Cancer and Testicular Self-Examination.

Factor 1: Susceptibility (SUS)		Factor 2: Seriousness (SER)		Factor 3: Benefits and health motivation (BEN)		Factor 4: Barriers (BAR)		Factor 5: Self-efficacy (SEF)		Factor 6: Health motivation (MOT)
Item	Factor loading	Item	Factor loading	Item	Factor loading	Item	Factor loading	Item	Factor loading	Item	Factor loading
SUS1	0.84	SER6	0.69	BEN20	0.50	BAR26	0.37	SEF35	0.51	MOT22	0.65
SUS2	0.89	SER7	0.63	BEN21	0.57	BAR27	0.52	SEF36	0.68	MOT23	0.67
SUS3	0.84	SER8	0.74			BAR28	0.55	SEF37	0.65	MOT24	0.79
SUS4	0.64	SER9	0.62	MOT16	0.74	BAR29	0.68	SEF38	0.63
SUS5	0.75	SER10	0.75	MOT17	0.86	BAR30	0.62
		SER11	0.49	MOT18	0.87	BAR31	0.61
		SER12	0.59	MOT19	0.86	BAR32	0.48
		SER13	0.68			BAR33	0.70
		SER14	0.58			BAR34	0.59
		SER15	0.48
Explained variance = 6.0%		Explained. variance = 18.7%		Explained variance = 12.8%		Explained variance = 7.2%		Explained variance = 4.8%		Explained variance = 4.5%
Total explained variance = 53.8%

The study reported that students doing self-examination affected their self-efficacy. Students who do self-examination had higher self-efficacy perceptions than those who did not (p < .001; Table 3). There was no correlation between students’ knowledge on self-examination and their health beliefs (p > .05).

Table 3.

Relationship Between Health Beliefs With Performing TSE.

	Performing TSE		Not performing TSE		Statistic	p
Subscales	x	SD	x	SD	Statistic	p
Susceptibility	11.3	4.1	12.4	4.0	−0.800	.449
Seriousness	24.5	8.4	29.4	7.3	−1.631	.146
Health motivation	9.5	2.6	9.0	2.6	0.538	.606
Benefits and health motivation	23.4	6.1	22.1	5.3	0.548	.600
Barriers	20.0	7.6	23.4	5.3	−1.816	.070
Self-efficacy	14.5	2.8	10.3	3.1	3.885	.000

Note. TSE = testicular self-examination.

p<0.001

Discussion

The HBM has been used in many studies to create measurement tools to determine health protective and promotive behaviors. The final version of the scale includes 37 items and 6 factors. The authors reviewed the relevant literature to develop the items on the scale. Champion adapted the Health Belief Scale to breast cancer studies, and this scale is the structural reproduction of this study (Champion & Scott, 1997). Explanatory factor analysis indicated that the form created for TC screenings was valid and reliable. Cronbach’s alpha value for each subscale varies between .64 and .88. These results are in accordance with Champion’s belief scale, and the results of the studies that are based on this scale (Çapık & Gözüm, 2011; Champion & Scott, 1997; Gözüm & Aydin, 2004; Kim et al., 1991).

Items with coefficient values lower than 0.30 are recommended to be excluded from the scale due to their statistical significance (Polit & Beck, 2003). In this study, the total–item correlation values for all items are statistically significant (factor loading minimum = 37; maximum = 89).

The authors added two more items about sexuality and reproductive health, which is a different quality from other similar studies. The inclusion of these items points to the importance attached to the change in the perception of seriousness. It is an important point that factor loads are above 0.30, and the alpha reliability coefficient of seriousness subdimension is high. TC is closely related to sexuality and reproduction. The statements about sexuality and reproductive health in this scale were carefully evaluated by the participants. Thus, it is important that these items were included in the scale because they reflect concerns about TC.

This study reported that students do not have sufficient information about TC, and they rarely do self-examination. In their study, Kuzgunbay et al. (2013) reported that 11.1% of 799 students were informed about TC, and only 2.5% of them did self-examination. Ugboma and Aburoma (2011) reported that 88.6% of their participants had not heard of TC, and 63% had not learned about self-examination. The results of this study are similar. Self-examination protects and improves health. For this reason, this behavior should be adopted and used by individuals. Like earlier studies, this study also reported that male students rarely did self-examination.

The self-efficacy levels of students who did self-examinations were higher than those who did not (p < .001). Self-efficacy indicates persons’ perceptions of their ability to succeed in a certain kind of behavior. Past studies have reported that the self-efficacy of people who know about and apply health protective behaviors are higher than those who do not (Avci, Kumcagiz, Altinel, & Caloglu, 2014; Çapık & Gözüm, 2011; Gözüm & Aydin, 2004). Self-examination is a health protective behavior. If students do it, both their participation in TC screenings and their possibilities of adopting and performing other similar behaviors will be increased.

The scale created in this study was determined to be valid and reliable for TC screenings. This new scale will help health professionals to determine the benefits, barriers, susceptibilities, seriousness, health motivation, and self-efficacy perceptions of young males. The scale will also contribute to the research on this subject.

Conclusion

The HBM scale may be used in TC screenings for males to measure susceptibility, seriousness, health motivation, barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy. Male health, particularly that of young males, can be described as a subject that is generally disregarded. Thus, the identification of young males’ health beliefs about TC and self-examination will help organize future educational practices and plan more effective initiatives. The measurement of men’s health beliefs regarding cancer screenings will create awareness and lead young men to adopt health protective behaviors.

Suggestions

Health professionals working in health protection and promotion can research young males’ beliefs about TC and self-examination using this study’s valid and reliable HBM scale. They can use this scale to learn about the health beliefs of males between 20 and 34 years of age who have cryptorchidism or TC in their family history, which is the high-risk group.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Albers

Albrecht

Algaba

Bokemeyer

Cohn-Cedermark

Fizazi

. . . Laguna

M. P.

(2015). Guidelines on testicular cancer. Arnhem, Netherlands: European Association of Urology. Retrieved from http://uroweb.org/wp-content/uploads/Testicular-Cancer-2010.pdf

American Cancer Society. (2015). What are the key statistics about testicular cancer? How is testicular cancer diagnosed? Retrieved from http://www.cancer.org/cancer/testicularcancer/detailedguide/testicular-cancer-key-statistics

Avci

I. A.

Kumcagiz

Altinel

Caloglu

(2014). Turkish female academician self-esteem and health beliefs for breast cancer screening. Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention, 15, 155-160.

Aydin

(2007). The incidence of urinary cancers in Turkey. Turkish Journal of Urology, 33, 392-397.

Bahrami

J. Y.

Ayala

A. G.

(2007). An overview of testicular germ cell tumors. Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, 131, 1267-1280.

Çapık

Gözüm

(2011). Development and validation of health beliefs model scale for prostate cancer screenings (HBM-PCS): Evidence from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. European Journal of Oncology Nursing, 15, 478-485. doi:10.1016/j.ejon.2010.12.003

Ceylan

Yılmaz

Yıldız

Kuş

Gönülalan

(2006). Cryptorchidism: Evaluation of the 164 cases in terms of associated anomalies, complications, treatment modality and age. Journal of Medical Researches, 4(3), 24-26.

Champion

V. L.

(1987). The relationship of breast self-examination to health belief model variables. Research in Nursing & Health, 10, 375-382.

Champion

V. L.

Scott

C. R.

(1997). Reliability and validity of breast cancer screening belief scales in African American women. Nursing Research, 46, 331-337.

10.

Clemen

S. A.

Mcguire

S. L.

Eigsti

D. G.

(2002). Comprehensive health nursing family aggregate and community practice (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

11.

Cronholm

P. F.

Mao

J. J.

Nguyen

G. T.

Paris

R. T.

(2009). A dilemma in male engagement in preventive services: Adolescent males’ knowledge and attitudes toward testicular cancer and testicular self-exam. American Journal of Men’s Health, 3, 134-140.

12.

Cummings

K. M.

Jette

A. M.

Rosenstock

I. M.

(1978). Construct validation of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 6, 394-405.

13.

Dieckmann

K. P.

Loy

Buttner

(1993). Prevalence of bilateral germ cell tumours and early detection based on contralateral testicular intra-epithelial neoplasia. British Journal of Urology, 71, 340-345.

14.

Gözüm

Aydin

(2004). Validation evidence for Turkish adaptation of Champion’s health belief model scales. Cancer Nursing, 27, 491-498.

15.

Gözüm

Capik

(2014). A guide in the development of health behaviours: Health belief model (HBM). Dokuz Eylül Universitesi Hemşirelik Yüksekokulu Elektronik Dergisi, 7, 230-237.

16.

Göçgeldi

Koçak

(2010). Evaluation of the education given to the young adult males about testicular self-examination. Gülhane Medical Journal, 52, 270-275.

17.

Guvenc

Akyuz

Açikel

C. H.

(2011). Health belief model scale for cervical cancer and Pap smear test: Psychometric testing. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 67, 428-437.

18.

Hurley

A. C.

(1990). The health belief model: Evaluation of a diabetes scale. Diabetes Educator, 16(1), 44-48.

19.

Janz

N. K.

Becker

M. H.

(1987). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47.

20.

Kim

K. K.

Horan

M. L.

Gendler

Patel

M. K.

(1991). Development and evaluation of the osteoporosis Health Belief Scale. Research in Nursing & Health, 14, 155-163.

21.

Kuzgunbay

Yaycioglu

Soyupak

Kayis

A. A.

Ayan

Yavascaoglu

. . . Beduk

(2013). Turkish study group of public awareness in testicular cancer public awareness of testicular cancer and self-examination in Turkey: A multicenter study of Turkish Urooncology Society. Urologic Oncology, 31, 386-391. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2011.01.020

22.

Lechner

Oenema

Nooijer

(2002). Testicular self-examination (TSE) among men aged 15-19: Determinants of the intention to practice TSE. Health Education Research, 17(1), 73-84.

23.

Levi

Lucchini

Negri

Boyle

La Vecchia

(2004). Cancer mortality in Europe, 1995-1999, and an overview of trends since 1960. International Journal of Cancer, 110, 155-169.

24.

Nigam

Aschebrook-Kilfoy

Shikanov

Eggene

(2015). Increasing incidence of testicular cancer in the United States and Europe between 1992 and 2009. World Journal of Urology, 33, 623-631.

25.

Osterlind

Berthelsen

J. G.

Abildgaard

Hansen

S. O.

Hjalgrim

Johansen

. . . Rasmussen

L. H.

(1991). Risk of bilateral testicular germ cell tumours in Denmark: 1960-1984. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 83, 1391-1395.

26.

Polit

D. F.

Beck

C. T.

(2003). Nursing research principles and methods (7th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, Williams &Wilkins.

27.

Ramim

Mousavi

S. O.

Rosatmnia

Bazyar

Ghanbari

(2014). Student knowledge of testicular cancer and self-examination in a medical sciences. Basic & Clinical Cancer Research, 6(4), 7-11.

28.

Rawl

Champion

Menon

Loehrer

Vance

Skinner

C. S.

(2001). Validation of scales to measure benefits and barriers to colorectal cancer screening. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology, 19(3-4), 47-63.

29.

Rudberg

Nilsson

Wikblad

Carlsson

(2005). Testicular cancer and testicular self-examination: Knowledge and attitudes of adolescent Swedish men. Cancer Nursing, 28, 256-262.

30.

Strecher

V. J.

Rosenstock

I. M.

(1997). The health belief model. In Baun

Newman

Weisnman

West

McManus

(Eds.), Cambridge handbook of psychology, health, and medicine (pp. 113-117). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Ugboma

H. A. A.

Aburoma

H. L. S.

(2011). Public awareness of testicular cancer and testicular self-examination in academic environments: A lost opportunity. Clinics, 66, 1125-1128. doi:10.1590/S1807-59322011000700001

32.

Wardle

Steptoe

Burckhardt

Vögele

Vila

Zarczynski

(1994). Testicular self-examination: Attitudes and practices among young men in Europe. Preventive Medicine, 23, 206-210.

The Validity and Reliability of Health Belief Scale for Testicular Cancer Self-Examination

Abstract

Keywords

Introduction

Method

Study Sample

Data Collection Tools

Item Selection

Instruments

Data Collection Procedure

Data Analysis

Results

Descriptive Features

Validity and Reliability

Discussion

Conclusion

Suggestions

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Funding

References