Psychometric evaluation of the German version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC).
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Healthcare professionals can be a source of stigma and discrimination for people with mental illness, and anti-stigma programs are needed for this target group. However, there is no validated German language scale to assess attitudes of healthcare professionals towards people with mental illness. This study had the aim to validate the German language version of the Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC), a self-report measure of stigmatizing attitudes.Methods
Staff (n = 392) on general psychiatric inpatient wards (excluding child, forensic and geriatric psychiatry) at five psychiatric hospitals in Switzerland (n = 3) and Germany (n = 2) participated in the study. The internal consistency of the OMS-HC was examined as well as its factor structure using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. To assess the scale's concurrent validity, we used the Social Distance Scale.Results
Internal consistency for the OMS-HC total score was good (α = 0.74), acceptable for the subscales Attitudes (α = 0.62) and Social Distance (α = 0.69), and poor for the Disclosure subscale (α = 0.55). The original three-factor structure fit our data well. The OMS-HC total score and the Social Distance subscale score were significantly correlated with the Social Distance Scale, supporting concurrent validity.Conclusion
The German version of the OMS-HC demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties and can be recommended for future research and intervention evaluation.
SUBMITTER: Zuaboni G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8139058 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundDiminishing stigmatization for those with mental illnesses by health care providers (HCPs) is becoming a priority for programming and policy, as well as research. In order to be successful, we must accurately measure stigmatizing attitudes and behaviours among HCPs. The Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) was developed to measure stigma in HCP populations. In this study we revisit the factor structure and the responsiveness of the OMS-HC in a larger, more representative sample of HCPs that are more likely to be targets for anti-stigma interventions.MethodsBaseline data were collected from HCPs (n?=?1,523) during 12 different anti-stigma interventions across Canada. The majority of HCPs were women (77.4%) and were either physicians (MDs) (41.5%), nurses (17.0%), medical students (13.4%), or students in allied health programs (14.0%). Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted using complete pre-test (n?=?1,305) survey data and responsiveness to change analyses was examined with pre and post matched data (n?=?803). The internal consistency of the OMS-HC scale and subscales was evaluated using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient. The scale's sensitivity to change was examined using paired t-tests, effect sizes (Cohen's d), and standardized response means (SRM).ResultsThe EFA favored a 3-factor structure which accounted for 45.3% of the variance using 15 of 20 items. The overall internal consistency for the 15-item scale (??=?0.79) and three subscales (??=?0.67 to 0.68) was acceptable. Subgroup analysis showed the internal consistency was satisfactory across HCP groups including physicians and nurses (??=?0.66 to 0.78). Evidence for the scale's responsiveness to change occurred across multiple samples, including student-targeted interventions and workshops for practicing HCPs. The Social Distance subscale had the weakest level of responsiveness (SRM???0.50) whereas the more attitudinal-based items comprising the Attitude (SRM???0.91) and Disclosure and Help-seeking (SRM???0.68) subscales had stronger responsiveness.ConclusionsThe OMS-HC has shown to have acceptable internal consistency and has been successful in detecting positive changes in various anti-stigma interventions. Our results support the use of a 15-item scale, with the calculation of three sub scores for Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking, and Social Distance.
| S-EPMC4024210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundResearch on the attitudes of health care providers towards people with mental illness has repeatedly shown that they may be stigmatizing. Many scales used to measure attitudes towards people with mental illness that exist today are not adequate because they do not have items that relate specifically to the role of the health care provider.MethodsWe developed and tested a new scale called the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC). After item-pool generation, stakeholder consultations and content validation, focus groups were held with 64 health care providers/trainees and six people with lived experience of mental illness to develop the scale. The OMS-HC was then tested with 787 health care providers/trainees across Canada to determine its psychometric properties.ResultsThe initial testing OMS-HC scale showed good internal consistency, Cronbach's alpha?=?0.82 and satisfactory test-retest reliability, intraclass correlation?=?0.66 (95% CI 0.54 to 0.75). The OMC-HC was only weakly correlated with social desirability, indicating that the social desirability bias was not likely to be a major determinant of OMS-HC scores. A factor analysis favoured a two-factor structure which accounted for 45% of the variance using 12 of the 20 items tested.ConclusionsThe OMS-HC provides a good starting point for further validation as well as a tool that could be used in the evaluation of programs aimed at reducing mental illness related stigma by health care providers. The OMS-HC incorporates various dimensions of stigma with a modest number of items that can be used with busy health care providers.
| S-EPMC3681304 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Opening Minds Stigma Scale for Health Care Providers (OMS-HC) is a widely used questionnaire to measure the stigmatising attitudes of healthcare providers towards patients with mental health problems. The psychometric properties of the scale; however, have never been investigated in Hungary. We aimed to thoroughly explore the factor structure of the OMS-HC and examine the key psychometric properties of the Hungarian version. METHODS:The OMS-HC is a self-report questionnaire that measures the overall stigmatising attitude by a total score, and three subscales can be calculated: Attitude, Disclosure and Help-seeking, and Social Distance. Our study population included specialists and trainees in adult and child psychiatry (n?=?211). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were performed, and higher-order factors were tested. We calculated the test-retest reliability on a subgroup of our sample (n?=?31) with a follow-up period of 1 month. The concurrent validity of the scale was measured with the Mental Illness: Clinician's Attitudes-4 scale (MICA-4). RESULTS:Three factors were extracted based on a parallel-analysis. A bifactor solution (a general factor and three specific factors) showed an excellent model-fit (root mean square error of approximation?=?0.025, comparative fit index?=?0.961, and Tucker-Lewis index?=?0.944). The model-based reliability was low; however, the general factor showed acceptable reliability (coefficient omega hierarchical =?0.56). The scale demonstrated a good concurrent validity with the MICA-4 [intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC)?=?0.77]. The test-retest reliability was excellent for the general factor (ICC?=?0.95) and good for the specific factors (ICC?=?0.90, 0.88, and 0.84, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:The three dimensions of the OMS-HC was confirmed, and the scale was found to be an adequate measure of the stigmatising attitude in Hungary. The bifactor model is more favourable as compared to the three correlated factor model; however, despite the excellent internal structure, its model-based reliability was low.
| S-EPMC7552521 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Diagnosis of fetal anomaly is a significant life event and social stigma can negatively impact on the well-being of women opting for an abortion. This study investigated the psychometric properties of a measure of stigma among women who had had an abortion after diagnosis of fetal anomaly in a German setting. METHODS:The Individual Level Abortion Stigma (ILAS) scale was translated into German. Psychometric properties of the ILAS scale were examined among 130 women with a history of an abortion after diagnosis of fetal anomaly. Individual and situational factors associated with stigma in the context of an abortion after diagnosis of fetal anomaly were explored. RESULTS:Factor analysis suggested a four-dimensional structure of the German version of the Individual Level Abortion Stigma scale (Cronbach's ?, .83-.91), corresponding to the subscales of the original scale. Test-retest reliability was acceptable for the worries about judgment subscale, the self-judgment subscale, and the community condemnation subscale, but less convincing for the isolation subscale. Associations between the subscales and measures of depression, self-esteem and secrecy were found in directions consistent with theory. Women who did not perceive their fetus to have a low survival chance and women whose fetus was at higher gestational age reported higher levels of stigma, whereas higher perceived partner support was associated with lower levels of stigma. LIMITATION:Generalizability of study results was limited, as participants were recruited from one clinic in Germany and the study had a response rate of 46.5%. CONCLUSIONS:The ILAS subscales are largely reliable and valid measures to assess stigma among women who have had an abortion after diagnosis of fetal anomaly. Suggestions for improving the assessment of stigma experienced in this population are outlined. The scales can be useful in research aiming at investigating psychological outcomes of abortion after diagnosis of fetal anomaly and improving care structures.
| S-EPMC5997354 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesStigma toward people with mental health problems (MHP) in primary health care (PHC) settings is an important public health challenge. Research on stigma toward MHP is relatively scarce in Chile and Latin America, as are instruments to measure stigma that are validated for use there. The present study aims to validate the Opening Minds Scale for Health Care Professionals (OMS-HC) among staff and providers in public Chilean PHC clinics, and examine differences in stigma by sociodemographic characteristics.Methods803 participants from 34 PHC clinics answered a self-administered questionnaire. Confirmatory factor analysis was completed. Average 15-item OMS-HC scores were calculated, and means were compared via t-test or ANOVA to identify group differences. Correlations of OMS-HC scores with other commonly used stigma scores were calculated to evaluate construct validity.ResultsThe 3-factor OMS-HC structure was confirmed in this population. The average OMS-HC (? = 0.69) score was 34.55 (theoretical range 15-75). Significantly lower (less stigmatizing) mean OMS-HC scores were found in those with additional training and/or personal experience with MHP.ConclusionThe validated, Spanish version of OMS-HC can be of use to further research stigma toward MHP in Chile and Latin America, advancing awareness and inspiring interventions to reduce stigma in the future.
| S-EPMC6728029 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Although significant attention has been devoted to analyzing stigma associated with epilepsy, there is still a significant lack of valid and reliable instruments. We aimed to validate the 23-item Czech version of the Stigma Scale of Epilepsy (SSE; originally developed in Brazil), which has been used to evaluate epilepsy-related stigma in the general population. Verification of the SSE questionnaire was carried out in a group of 207 students aged 15-18 years of whom none had epilepsy. These students completed the SSE twice in a period of 3-6 months as part of standard test-retest evaluation practice. The instrument exhibits good psychometric properties including internal consistency higher than in the original version (Cronbach's alpha of 0.856 here compared with 0.81 reported in Brazil) and acceptable test-retest reliability. Using exploratory factor analysis (not provided for the original version), four factors were identified and corresponding subscales were described and interpreted. Two items did not fit into the structure and were eliminated. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to propose and verify the hierarchical 4-factor structure of the Czech version of SSE confirming the existence of a common factor corresponding to stigma. The results showed that the Czech version of SSE has good psychometric properties and can be used in further research and clinical practice.
| S-EPMC5875900 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:The Self-Image Scale is a self-report measure originally developed for use in women with cancer. Two subscales assess appearance satisfaction (self-acceptance) and perceptions of partners' acceptance of their appearance (partner-acceptance). This study aimed to increase the Self-Image Scale's utility by 1) confirming the two-factor structure of the German version of the Self-Image Scale, 2) testing measurement invariance across sex and age groups and validity, and 3) gathering general population normative data. METHODS:Confirmatory factor analysis methods were used to examine the proposed two-factor model in a random sample of adults from the general German population (N = 1367). Measurement invariance, scale reliability, and validity were assessed. RESULTS:The original factor structure and measurement invariance across sexes and age groups were supported. Women showed significantly lower self-acceptance than men. Adolescent and young adult women showed higher self-acceptance than senior women. For both sexes, partner-acceptance lowered across successive age cohorts. Internal consistencies were good. CONCLUSIONS:Results support the use of the German version of the Self-Image Scale in research and clinical practice. Research directions include validation in further diseases, collecting normative data across countries, and dyadic research, particularly exploring partner-acceptance across the life span.
| S-EPMC7075632 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStigma has been noticed towards patients with COVID-19 in several regions of the world. This social discrimination has contributed to delay in diagnosis and treatment. Also, it may increase the suffering of the patients leading to poor outcome of the illness. Stigma can be assessed with the use of a valid and reliable instrument developed and adapted to our culture. Our objective was to analyze the psychometric properties of COVID-19 Infection Stigma Scale (CISS) for measuring the social stigma among patients with COVID-19 in Egypt. A cross-sectional study that included 182 COVID-19 patients was carried out. The reliability, the convergent validity, and the external and internal consistency of the scale were measured. Factor analysis was used to exclude the weak items.ResultsThe mean of the COVID-19 Infection Stigma Scale scores was 34.97±10.35 which was higher than 50% of the score. Absence of the floor and ceiling effects was observed. Cronbach's alpha coefficient for scale reliability ranged from 0.75 to 0.94 with 0.82 for the total score. The convergent validity coefficients ranged from 0.36 to 0.63. Test-retest validity Pearson's correlation coefficients ranged from 0.72 to 0.92 with 0.89 for the total score. The split half correlation coefficient was 0.86, and the reliability coefficient was 0.92. Both were acceptable correlation coefficients for internal consistency of the scale. Factor analysis showed two factors had latent root greater than 1. The rotated component matrix of the 2 factors revealed that all questions had r value more than 0.30, which means that no need to exclude any of them.ConclusionThe results showed that the COVID-19 Infection Stigma Scale is a valid and reliable instrument for the Egyptian people.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41983-021-00317-0.
| S-EPMC8127429 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:The Protective Behavioral Strategies Scale (PBSS-20) is one of the most commonly used measures of engagement in protective behavioral strategies (PBS). This research aimed to examine the psychometric properties of a French and German version of the PBSS-20 in a large sample of young males in Switzerland. METHOD:The sample included 5,017 young males (mean age = 25.44) participating in the Cohort Study on Substance Use Risk Factors in Switzerland. Measures of PBS use, total drinks per week, and alcohol-related consequences were used from a second follow-up assessment. RESULTS:Confirmatory factor analysis testing different models previously documented in the literature provided initial support for a four-factor model. Fit statistics indicated that this model adequately reflects the structure of data. Further findings also provided support for adequate internal consistency and for convergent validity of this four-factor model, whereas metric-but not scalar-measurement invariance across linguistic regions was demonstrated. CONCLUSION:Although further research testing measurement invariance across linguistic regions and gender is warranted, results of the current study suggest that the French and German PBSS-20 is reliable and that it may represent a promising research and clinical tool that can be used in both French- and German-speaking countries.
| S-EPMC6877153 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe availability of psychometrically sound instruments for the assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is indispensable for clinical and scientific work with individuals suffering from trauma-related distress.ObjectiveThe aim of the present study was to translate the Post-Traumatic Diagnostic Scale for DSM-5 (PDS-5) into German and to evaluate its psychometric properties as well as convergent, discriminant, and factorial validity.MethodThe authorized German translation of the PDS-5 was completed by 270 patients admitted to specialized outpatient trauma clinics. Of these, 57.8% completed the PDS for a second time (mean time between assessments was 12.0 days). In order to examine convergent and discriminant validity of the PDS-5, the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 as well as Patient Health Questionnaire subscales assessing depression (PHQ-9), somatization (PHQ-15), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) were applied.ResultsThe PDS-5 total score showed excellent internal consistency (α = .91) and re-test reliability (rho = .84). Convergent validity was supported by a strong correlation with the total score of the Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5; rho = .91). Correlations with Patient Health Questionnaire subscales of depression (rho = .81), anxiety (rho = .72), and somatization (rho = .65) were significantly lower (all p < .001) indicating discriminant validity of the PDS-5. Confirmative Factor Analysis did not result in a clear preference for one of the tested models. Defining a diagnostic cut-off value of ≥36 based on ROC analysis resulted in high sensitivity (.92) and specificity (.96) compared to a probable PTSD diagnosis according to the PCL-5.ConclusionsIn summary, our results indicate that the German PDS-5 translation provides valid and reliable information concerning both PTSD severity and diagnosis.
| S-EPMC8475123 | biostudies-literature