PURPOSE: Most measures of stigma are illness specific and do not allow for comparisons across conditions. As part of a study of health-related quality of life for people with neurological disorders, our team developed an instrument to assess the stigma for people with chronic illnesses. METHODS: We based item content on literature review, responses from focus groups, and cognitive interviews. We then administered the items to people with neurological disorders for psychometric testing. RESULTS: Five hundred eleven participants completed items of the stigma scale. Exploratory factor analysis produced two factors that were highly correlated (r = 0.81). Confirmatory factor analysis produced high standardized loadings on an overall stigma factor (0.68-0.94), with poorer loadings on the two sub-domains (-0.12 to 0.53). These results demonstrated a sufficiently unidimensional scale that corresponded with the bifactor model. Item response theory modeling suggested good model fit, and differential item functioning analyses indicated that the 24-item scale showed potential for measurement equivalence across conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our efforts produced a stigma scale that had promising psychometric properties. Further study can provide additional information about the SSCI and its benefit in measuring the impact of stigma across conditions.
PURPOSE: Most measures of stigma are illness specific and do not allow for comparisons across conditions. As part of a study of health-related quality of life for people with neurological disorders, our team developed an instrument to assess the stigma for people with chronic illnesses. METHODS: We based item content on literature review, responses from focus groups, and cognitive interviews. We then administered the items to people with neurological disorders for psychometric testing. RESULTS: Five hundred eleven participants completed items of the stigma scale. Exploratory factor analysis produced two factors that were highly correlated (r = 0.81). Confirmatory factor analysis produced high standardized loadings on an overall stigma factor (0.68-0.94), with poorer loadings on the two sub-domains (-0.12 to 0.53). These results demonstrated a sufficiently unidimensional scale that corresponded with the bifactor model. Item response theory modeling suggested good model fit, and differential item functioning analyses indicated that the 24-item scale showed potential for measurement equivalence across conditions. CONCLUSIONS: Our efforts produced a stigma scale that had promising psychometric properties. Further study can provide additional information about the SSCI and its benefit in measuring the impact of stigma across conditions.
Authors: Jennifer N Sayles; Ron D Hays; Catherine A Sarkisian; Anish P Mahajan; Karen L Spritzer; William E Cunningham Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2008-04-04
Authors: Wayne T Steward; Gregory M Herek; Jayashree Ramakrishna; Shalini Bharat; Sara Chandy; Judith Wrubel; Maria L Ekstrand Journal: Soc Sci Med Date: 2008-07-01 Impact factor: 4.634
Authors: Rachel Rinehart; Deep Rao; Rivet K Amico; Eduardo Ruiz; Peter Brandes; Cecilia Correa; Siavash Pasalar; Javier R Lama; Ann Duerr; Yamile Molina Journal: AIDS Behav Date: 2019-03
Authors: Alex W K Wong; Stephen C L Lau; David Cella; Jin-Shei Lai; Guanli Xie; Lidian Chen; Chetwyn C H Chan; Allen W Heinemann Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Roxanne Kerani; Masahiro Narita; Lauren Lipira; Meheret Endeshaw; King K Holmes; Matthew R Golden Journal: J Immigr Minor Health Date: 2019-06
Authors: Deepa Rao; Christopher G Kemp; David Huh; Paul E Nevin; Janet Turan; Susan E Cohn; Jane M Simoni; Michele Andrasik; Yamile Molina; Michael J Mugavero; Audrey L French Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2018-07-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: John M Salsman; David Victorson; Seung W Choi; Amy H Peterman; Allen W Heinemann; Cindy Nowinski; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-03-23 Impact factor: 4.147