Skip to main content

Table 2 The descriptive characteristics and structure of instruments

From: Psychometric properties and performance of existing self-efficacy instruments in cancer populations: a systematic review

Instrument (language if not English)

Mode of administration

Scoring

Number of items

Domains covered

Time needed

Reading level

Acceptability

SICPAb

Self

11-point

0 (not at all confident) to

10 (absolutely confident)

38

Six

1) Coping with medical procedures

2) Communication

3) Activity management

4) Personal management

5) Affective management

6) Self-satisfaction

NR

NR

NR

SUPPHb

Self

5-point

1 (very little confidence)

to 5 (quite a lot of confidence)

29

Four

1) Coping

2) Stress reduction

3)Making decisions

4) Enjoying life.

NR

NR

NR

Three

1) Positive attitude

2) Stress reduction

3) Making decision.

Two

1) Physiological efficacy information

2) Performance efficacy information.

SEACb

(Japanese)

Self

11-point

0 (not at all confident)

to 10(totally confident).

18

Three

1) Symptom coping efficacy

2) ADL efficacy

3) Affect regulation efficacy

NR

NR

NR

SESCI b

Self

10 (not at all certain) to

100 (completely certain)

15

Three

1) Self-efficacy for managing pain

2) Self-efficacy for managing other symptoms

3)Self-efficacy for function.

NR

NR

NR

CASE-cancer b

Interviewer

4-point

1(strongly disagree) to

4(strongly disagree)

12

Three

1) Understand and participate in care

2) Maintain a positive attitude

3) Seek and obtain information

NR

8th grade level or below

NR

OTSES-CAb

(Chinese)

Self

11-point

0(not at all confident) to

10(completely confident)

30

Four

1) Pain and the use of analgesics

2)Tailoring of the medication regimen

3)Acquiring help

4) Management of treatment-related concerns.

7.5–20 min

(average 11 min)

NR

NR

CBI-Ba

Self

9-point

1 (not at all confident) to

9 (totally confident)

12

Four

1) Maintaining independence and positive attitude

2) Participating in medical care

3) Coping and stress management

4) Managing affect

NR

NR

NR

PSEFSM a

Self

11-point

0~10(very certain)

6

One

Perceived self-efficacy for fatigue self-management

NR

NR

< 0.005% missing

data

SESSM-Bb

(Korean)

Self

5-point

1 (not at all) to 5(very)

13

Five

1) Coping with psycho-informational demand

2) Maintenance of healthy lifestyle

3) Management of side-effects

4) Therapeutic compliance

5) Sexual life

NR

NR

NR

BCSES b

Self

5-point

1 (strongly disagree) to

5 (strongly agree)

11

One

Self-efficacy of manage symptoms and quality of life

problems

NR

NR

NR

C-SUPPH a

(Chinese)

Self

5-point

1 (very little confidence) to

5 (quite a lot of confidence).

28

Three

1) Positive attitude

2) Stress reduction

3) Making decisions.

NR

NR

NR

EBSES a

Self

0% (not at all confident) to

100% (extremely confident),

with 10% intervals

5

Two

1) General exercise barriers

2)Lymphedema-specific exercise barriers

NR

NR

NR

SMSES-BC a

(Chinese)

Self

11-point

0(not at all confident) to 10(complete confidence)

27

Three

1)Acquiring problem-solving

2)Managing chemotherapy-related symptoms

3)Managing emotional and interpersonal disturbances

NR

NR

NR

SMSFS-Aa

Self

11-point: 0 (not confident at all) to 10 (extremely confident)

17

One

Self-efficacy of fatigue self-management behaviors

7.5 min

NR

NR

SESPRM-LCa

(Chinese)

Self

5-point

0 (not confident at all) to

5 (completely confident)

27

Six

1) Emotion management self-efficacy

2) Rehabilitation information acquisition and application self-efficacy

3) Coping with treatment adverse effects self-efficacy

4) Symptom self-management self-efficacy

5) Rehabilitation training and skill cultivation self-efficacy

6) Daily life management self-efficacy

NR

NR

NR

  1. Instrument: instrument abbreviation name, asterisks indicate whether a copy of the instrument was provided
  2. a full copy of the instrument
  3. b limited detail on items and scaling information provided, and language. Acceptability reflects the respondents’ willingness to complete the tool and impacts on quality of data, as estimated by percentage of missing data to estimate it