The Cancer Treatment Survey (CaTS)<\/a> is a psychometrically validated, patient-reported outcome measure developed to evaluate cancer patients’ preparation, informational needs, and anticipatory concerns prior to commencing cytotoxic chemotherapy<\/a> or external beam radiotherapy<\/a>. Emerging from psycho-oncology research addressing high rates of pre-treatment distress, the instrument quantifies the degree to which patients perceive a need for additional preparatory support and procedural guidance. The instrument comprises 25 items organized into two distinct, psychometrically robust subscales: Sensory\/Psychological Concerns<\/strong> (11 items) and Procedural Concerns<\/strong> (14 items). Each item is rated on a 5-point Likert scale<\/a> ranging from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 5 (“Strongly Agree”).<\/p>\n Psychometric evaluation demonstrates high structural integrity and internal consistency. Factor analytic investigations confirm a stable two-factor solution accounting for substantial variance, achieved after systematically removing 11 non-performing items from an original 36-item developmental pool. Both subscales display internal reliability coefficients with Cronbach\u2019s alpha<\/a> exceeding α = 0.90, alongside average inter-item correlations surpassing r<\/em> = 0.30, indicating strong item homogeneity without excessive redundancy. Divergent validity is demonstrated through modest correlations (r<\/em> < 0.30) with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale<\/a> anxiety (HADS-A) and total (HADS-T) indices, confirming that CaTS captures treatment-specific preparatory deficits rather than general, non-specific psychological distress. Furthermore, the measure exhibits known-groups validity, detecting significantly elevated procedural concerns among younger patients under 65 years of age. The CaTS provides oncologists, clinical psychologists, and cancer care teams with an actionable framework for pre-treatment triaging and supportive care optimization<\/span>.<\/p>\n Cancer Treatment Survey, CaTS, psycho-oncology, chemotherapy preparation, radiotherapy anxiety, pre-treatment distress, sensory concerns, procedural concerns, patient-reported outcome measures, oncology patient education, treatment-related anxiety, health psychology<\/p>\n The Cancer Treatment Survey was developed by Penelope Schofield<\/strong> and colleagues within the Department of Cancer Experiences Research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre<\/a> in Melbourne, Victoria, Australia, in collaboration with the University of Melbourne and Swinburne University of Technology.<\/p>\n Lead Author:<\/strong> Professor Penelope Schofield, PhD, is an internationally recognized behavioral scientist and psycho-oncology researcher specializing in supportive cancer care, patient education interventions, preparation for threatening medical procedures, and digital health interventions. Correspondence regarding the original validation study was directed to the Department of Cancer Experiences Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, St Andrew\u2019s Place, East Melbourne, Victoria 3002, Australia.<\/p>\n The initiation of cancer-directed therapies\u2014specifically chemotherapy and radiotherapy\u2014represents a critical juncture characterized by severe psychological morbidity, existential vulnerability, and acute anticipatory anxiety. Empirical studies indicate that up to 47% of women with early-stage breast cancer experience clinically significant anxiety prior to starting adjuvant chemotherapy, while over 50% of patients awaiting radiotherapy report marked pre-treatment apprehension, with approximately 40% maintaining elevated anxiety throughout their treatment trajectory. Patients face an array of unfamiliar clinical environments, complex procedural demands, and feared somatic sequelae including severe nausea, fatigue, alopecia, neutropenic infection, neuropathic pain, and mucositis.<\/p>\n Despite the prevalence of pre-treatment distress, routine oncology assessments historically relied on generic affective inventories such as the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)<\/a> or generalized distress thermometers. While these instruments identify affective disruption, they lack the operational granularity required to pinpoint what<\/em> specific aspects of the upcoming treatment are driving the patient’s distress. Consequently, clinicians have often been unable to determine whether elevated anxiety reflects informational deficits regarding daily clinic logistics, terror regarding specific physical side-effects, or inadequate psychological coping mechanisms.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the Cancer Treatment Survey (CaTS) is to fill this clinical and evaluative gap by serving as a standardized, multidimensional diagnostic instrument. It measures patient preparation for chemotherapy and radiotherapy across two complementary axes: somatic\/psychological threat appraisals and procedural informational deficits. Specifically, the CaTS is designed to:<\/p>\n The CaTS operationalizes the construct of patient preparation for medical treatment<\/em>, defining it not merely as the passive reception of medical facts, but as an active cognitive-affective state wherein the individual possesses sufficient procedural knowledge, cognitive schema, and coping mechanisms to face threatening clinical interventions with reduced distress and heightened perceived control. Psychometrically, the instrument divides this macro-construct into two core operational dimensions:<\/p>\n This subscale captures the patient’s anticipatory emotional distress, threat appraisals, and perceived need for assistance in managing the subjective, affective, and somatic sequelae of cancer therapy. Rather than measuring current somatic symptom burden, this dimension assesses the degree of anticipatory anxiety and the felt inadequacy of coping resources regarding prospective physical deterioration and psychological decompensation.<\/p>\n Key facets evaluated within this dimension include:<\/p>\n This subscale assesses the patient’s perceived deficits in instrumental, logistical, and behavioral knowledge required to navigate the medical treatment regimen. Rooted in self-efficacy and behavioral control paradigms, this construct reflects the patient’s demand for explicit, concrete guidance regarding their active role within the treatment process.<\/p>\n Key facets evaluated within this dimension include:<\/p>\n The architecture of the CaTS is grounded in two primary health psychology frameworks: Jean Johnson\u2019s Theory of Preparatory Information<\/strong> and Howard Leventhal\u2019s Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation of Health and Illness<\/strong>.<\/p>\n Jean Johnson\u2019s pioneering work on preparation for threatening medical procedures posits that distress during noxious physical interventions is heavily mediated by the discrepancy between what patients expect<\/em> to experience and what they actually<\/em> experience. When unexpected sensations occur, patients tend to interpret them as indicators of physiological danger or error, triggering heightened autonomic arousal, cognitive catastrophic appraisal, and behavioral distress.<\/p>\n Johnson demonstrated that preparatory communications must provide two distinct types of information to be maximally effective:<\/p>\n By mapping out both domains, the patient forms an accurate cognitive schema prior to entering the clinical environment. When physical sensations or procedural steps unfold, they match the pre-formed cognitive representation, thereby neutralizing threat appraisal. The two subscales of the CaTS directly map onto these theoretical divisions, evaluating whether the patient has received adequate preparatory support across both the sensory-affective and procedural domains.<\/p>\n Under Leventhal’s Common-Sense Model<\/a>, individuals confronted with health threats construct parallel cognitive and emotional representations of the illness and its treatment. The cognitive representation comprises five core attributes: identity (labels and symptoms), cause, timeline, consequences, and control\/cure. In tandem, an emotional representation develops, eliciting fear, anxiety, and depressive reactions.<\/p>\n The CaTS operationalizes treatment-related self-regulation by evaluating the patient’s perceived illness coherence and control. When procedural knowledge is incomplete, patients lack behavioral control schemas, resulting in elevated Procedural Concerns. Similarly, when the emotional and somatic consequences are poorly understood or perceived as uncontrollable, patients experience heightened Sensory\/Psychological Concerns. The CaTS assesses the specific gaps within the patient’s mental model before treatment commences, identifying where cognitive and emotional self-regulation remains vulnerable.<\/p>\n The validation of the CaTS involved a prospective psychometric cohort of 286 cancer patients scheduled to undergo chemotherapy or radiotherapy across major Australian tertiary oncology centers (Schofield et al., 2012). The authors subjected the scale to rigorous construct, convergent, divergent, and known-groups validity testing.<\/p>\n During scale development, an initial pool of 36 items was generated through systematic clinical observations, qualitative patient interviews, and multidisciplinary expert consensus panels (oncologists, radiation therapists, oncology nurses, psycho-oncologists). Following field testing, an extensive item-reduction protocol eliminated 11 items exhibiting poor distributional characteristics, floor\/ceiling effects, severe multicollinearity, or cross-loadings in exploratory factor models. The final 25-item structure cleanly confirmed two robust latent factors with clear conceptual integrity.<\/p>\n A crucial psychometric challenge in pre-treatment oncology assessment is demonstrating that an instrument does not simply mirror general psychiatric morbidity or non-specific negative affectivity. To establish divergent validity, CaTS subscale scores were correlated against the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)<\/a>. Correlations between the CaTS subscales and HADS Anxiety (HADS-A), HADS Depression (HADS-D), and HADS Total (HADS-T) were all low to modest (all correlation coefficients r<\/em> < 0.30). This empirical divergence confirms that the CaTS measures specific unmet preparatory and informational needs rather than baseline affective disorders or generalized trait neuroticism<\/span>.<\/p>\n Known-groups validity was demonstrated through demographic and clinical comparisons. Chronological age emerged as a prominent predictor: younger participants (aged under 65 years) exhibited significantly higher scores on the Procedural Concerns subscale compared to older cohorts (p<\/em> < 0.001, exhibiting a medium effect size). This finding aligns with established oncology literature showing that younger patients often demand greater informational autonomy, express higher need for behavioral control, and experience more severe lifestyle and vocational disruption from cancer treatment schedules<\/span>.<\/p>\n The CaTS demonstrates exceptional internal consistency across clinical settings and diverse cancer populations. Psychometric evaluations reported by Schofield et al. (2012) yield the following reliability metrics:<\/p>\n The structural dimensionality of the CaTS was established using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)<\/a> with oblique rotation (Promax\/Oblimin), reflecting the theoretical assumption that sensory-affective worries and procedural informational demands share common clinical variance while remaining distinct latent constructs.<\/p>\n The developmental 36-item questionnaire was evaluated on a sample of 286 patients preparing for chemotherapy or radiotherapy. Factor retention was guided by Kaiser’s eigenvalue criterion (eigenvalues > 1.0), scree plot inspection, and parallel analysis. Eleven items were eliminated due to<\/span>:<\/p>\n The resulting 25-item structure yielded an interpretable, clean two-factor solution:<\/p>\n The two latent factors exhibited a moderate inter-factor correlation (typically between r<\/em> = 0.40 and 0.55), confirming their conceptual association as components of pre-treatment distress while demonstrating sufficient unique variance to justify independent subscale scoring<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Cancer Treatment Survey (CaTS) was developed and validated in 2012<\/strong> by Professor Penelope Schofield and colleagues. The foundational development and validation study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Psycho-Oncology<\/em> (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.).<\/p>\n Licensing and Usage:<\/strong> The CaTS was designed for widespread use in both academic clinical trials and routine hospital quality-improvement programs. Non-commercial academic research and routine clinical practice generally do not incur fee requirements; however, formal notification or permission from the original developers is recommended prior to implementation. Researchers and clinical teams wishing to utilize, translate, or incorporate the CaTS into digital systems should contact the corresponding author, Prof. Penelope Schofield, through the Department of Cancer Experiences Research at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre or via academic institutional affiliations at Swinburne University of Technology.<\/p>\n Instructions to the Patient:<\/strong><\/p>\n Before Treatment:<\/em><\/p>\n Response Anchors:<\/strong> I would find it helpful if I received more assistance to cope with my:<\/em><\/p>\n I would find it helpful if I received more assistance to cope with my worries that the treatment might:<\/em><\/p>\n I would find it helpful if I received more information about:<\/em><\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Sensory\/Psychological Concerns<\/h3>\n
\n
2. Procedural Concerns<\/h3>\n
\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
Johnson\u2019s Dual-Process Preparatory Information Framework<\/h3>\n
\n
Leventhal\u2019s Common-Sense Model (CSM) of Self-Regulation<\/h3>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Structural Validity<\/h3>\n
Divergent (Discriminant) Validity<\/h3>\n
Known-Groups and Clinical Validity<\/h3>\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Item Pruning and Extraction<\/h3>\n
\n
Final Factor Solution<\/h3>\n
\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
Items of the Scale<\/h2>\n
\n
\n 1 = Strongly Disagree<\/span>
\n 2 = Disagree<\/span>
\n 3 = In Between<\/span>
\n 4 = Agree<\/span>
\n 5 = Strongly Agree<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSection 1: General Coping Assistance<\/h3>\n
\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\nSection 2: Assistance with Specific Side-Effects and Somatic Worries<\/h3>\n
\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\nSection 3: Informational and Procedural Preparation<\/h3>\n
\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n
\n [1] Strongly Disagree [2] Disagree [3] In Between [4] Agree [5] Strongly Agree<\/span>\n <\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"