Page 167 - EJMO-9-3

Eurasian Journal of
Medicine and Oncology Psychological care for cancer patients

2.2.1. Psychotherapist’s CSS measuring the self-efficacy of the psychotherapist, as

A section of the questionnaire was developed based on the confirmed by both exploratory and confirmatory factor
scale previously described, consisting of 42 elements, with analyses. The overall scale structure was verified through
32
half of them worded in reverse. The scale uses six response EFA, yielding a KMO value of 0.91. In addition, Bartlett’s
2
options with linguistic indicators: 1 (never/kind of); 2 test indicated statistical significance (χ = 2941.67; df = 210;
(occasionally); 3 (sometimes); 4 (usually); 5 (a lot); and 6 p<0.001). CFA also revealed high model quality indicators
(many times). The complete CSS (HP-CSS), including all 42 (CFI = 0.96; TLI = 0.95; RMSEA = 0.04), emphasizing a
items has been provided in the appendix section. The scale strong single-factor structure of the scale. In terms of
consists of four basic dimensions: (i) media communication, stability, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the scale ranged
comprising 12 elements (3, 6, 11, 13, 16, 18, 20, 27, 30, 38, 39, between 0.83 and 0.89: communicative effectiveness
and 42) that reflect the way healthcare professionals obtain (α = 0.85), clinical competence (α = 0.88), psychological
and present information within their clinical interactions competence (α = 0.86), relational competence (α = 0.89),
with patients; (ii) empathy, comprising 13 items (4, 5, 12, influence regulation (α = 0.83), and diagnostic skills
14, 17, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 36, 37, and 41) that reflect the (α = 0.87), with overall scale reliability of α = 0.92; this
ability of healthcare professionals to understand patients’ suggests high reliability and accuracy of the scale.
feelings and demonstrate empathy through behaviors such 2.3. Statistical analysis
as active listening and empathetic responses; (iii) respect
and authenticity, with five items (2, 10, 26, 33, and 34) that The study data were analyzed using the statistical
assess the respect, authenticity, and conformity displayed analysis software Statistical Package for the Social
by healthcare professionals in their clinical interactions Sciences version 27. The analysis began by assessing data
with patients; and (iv) social skills, with 12 items (1, 7, 8, 9, distribution, revealing deviations from normality in some
15, 19, 24, 25, 31, 32, 35, and 40) that reflect the ability of variables, which necessitated the use of nonparametric
health professionals to be assertive or demonstrate skilled tests. Descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviations,
social behaviors in their clinical interactions with patients. frequencies, and percentages) were computed for all study
The validity and reliability of the scale were thoroughly variables and demographic data. Scale scores are presented
assessed, where the comparative compatibility index as mean ± standard deviation. Spearman’s rho correlation
(CFI) was calculated to be 0.95, reflecting a high level of test was used to examine the relationship between the
internal consistency. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) underlying variables, and multiple regression analysis
was conducted to verify the general structure of the scale, assessed the extent to which communication skills and
yielding a Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin (KMO) value of 0.89, self-efficacy predicted the quality of psychological services.
indicating sample adequacy for factor analysis. Bartlett’s The analyses were directly linked to the three hypotheses of
test of sphericity revealed statistical significance (Chi- the study, using a statistical significance level of α ≤ 0.05.
2
square [χ ] = 4156.23; Degrees of freedom [df] = 861; In addition, analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to
p<0.001), confirming data suitability for factor analysis. test for statistically significant differences in mean scores
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) demonstrated good fit across groups based on demographic characteristics
indices (CFI = 0.95; Tucker–Lewis index [TLI] = 0.94; and (e.g., workplace, academic level). The assumptions for
root mean square error of approximation [RMSEA] = 0.05), ANOVA—independence of observations, homogeneity
indicating strong structural validity. Cronbach’s alpha of variances (Levene’s test), and approximately normally
coefficients demonstrated high internal consistency across distributed residuals—were assessed before interpretation.
dimensions: Media communication (α = 0.84), empathy Furthermore, various analytical models were applied
(α = 0.87), respect and authenticity (α = 0.80), social skills depending on the nature of each hypothesis: correlational
(α = 0.86), and overall scale reliability (α = 0.88). models for relational hypotheses, regression models for
predictive hypotheses, and group comparison models
2.2.2. Psychotherapist’s self-efficacy scale (e.g., ANOVA) for testing differences across categorical
Another part of the questionnaire was developed variables. All analyses were conducted using a statistical
based on the scale previously described to assess the significance threshold of α ≤ 0.05.
33
professional self-efficacy of a psychotherapist. The 3. Results
scale consists of 21 elements and six dimensions: (i)
communicative effectiveness, (ii) clinical competence, (iii) The characteristics of the study participants are displayed
psychological competence, (iv) relational competence, (v) in Table 1. The study sample was relatively balanced
influence regulation, and (vi) diagnostic skills. The scale between genders, with 161 (48.9%) male participants and
demonstrates a clear single-factor structure, effectively 168 (51.1%) female participants. The workplace of the

Volume 9 Issue 3 (2025) 159 doi: 10.36922/EJMO025110054