IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v16y2019i2p244-d198191.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Instrument to Measure Mental Health Professionals’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Service Users’ Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa

    (Section of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, 08035 Catalonia, Spain
    Yale Program for Recovery and Community Health, Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06513, USA
    First-Person Research Group, Veus, Catalan Federation of 1st Person Mental Health Organisations, Barcelona, 08025 Catalonia, Spain)

  • Laura Limiñana-Bravo

    (Section of Personality, Assessment and Psychological Treatment, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychobiology, Faculty of Psychology, University of Barcelona, Barcelona, 08035 Catalonia, Spain
    First-Person Research Group, Veus, Catalan Federation of 1st Person Mental Health Organisations, Barcelona, 08025 Catalonia, Spain)

Abstract

We aimed at developing and validating a scale on the beliefs and attitudes of mental health professionals towards services users’ rights in order to provide a valid evaluation instrument for training activities with heterogeneous mental health professional groups. Items were extracted from a review of previous instruments, as well as from several focus groups which have been conducted with different mental health stakeholders, including mental health service users. The preliminary scale consisted of 44 items and was administered to 480 mental health professionals. After eliminating non-discriminant and low weighting items, a final scale of 25 items was obtained. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses produced a four-factor solution consisting of the following four dimensions; system criticism / justifying beliefs , freedom / coercion , empowerment / paternalism , and tolerance / discrimination . The scale shows high concordance with our theoretical model as well as adequate parameters of explained variance, model fit, and internal reliability. Additional work is required to assess the cultural equivalence and psychometrics of this tool in other settings and populations, including health students.

Suggested Citation

  • Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa & Laura Limiñana-Bravo, 2019. "An Instrument to Measure Mental Health Professionals’ Beliefs and Attitudes towards Service Users’ Rights," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(2), pages 1-16, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:2:p:244-:d:198191
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/2/244/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/16/2/244/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Chalmers, R. Philip, 2012. "mirt: A Multidimensional Item Response Theory Package for the R Environment," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i06).
    2. Guy Moors, 2008. "Exploring the effect of a middle response category on response style in attitude measurement," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 42(6), pages 779-794, December.
    3. Rizopoulos, Dimitris, 2006. "ltm: An R Package for Latent Variable Modeling and Item Response Analysis," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 17(i05).
    4. Rosseel, Yves, 2012. "lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i02).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Janice Chisholm & Judy Hope & Ellie Fossey & Melissa Petrakis, 2023. "Mental Health Clinician Attitudes about Service User and Family Agency and Involvement in Recovery-Oriented Practice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(18), pages 1-11, September.
    2. Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa, 2020. "Understanding Psychosocial Wellbeing in the Context of Complex and Multidimensional Problems," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(16), pages 1-8, August.
    3. Francisco José Eiroa-Orosa & María Lomascolo & Anaïs Tosas-Fernández, 2021. "Efficacy of an Intervention to Reduce Stigma Beliefs and Attitudes among Primary Care and Mental Health Professionals: Two Cluster Randomised-Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Daniel L. Oberski, 2016. "A Review of Latent Variable Modeling With R," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 41(2), pages 226-233, April.
    2. Cervantes, Víctor H., 2017. "DFIT: An R Package for Raju's Differential Functioning of Items and Tests Framework," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i05).
    3. Jenna Hicks & Jessica Dewey & Yaniv Brandvain & Anita Schuchardt, 2020. "Development of the Biological Variation In Experimental Design And Analysis (BioVEDA) assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-21, July.
    4. Paola Annoni & Nicholas Charron, 2019. "Measurement Assessment in Cross-Country Comparative Analysis: Rasch Modelling on a Measure of Institutional Quality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 141(1), pages 31-60, January.
    5. Piotr Koc, 2021. "Measuring Non-electoral Political Participation: Bi-factor Model as a Tool to Extract Dimensions," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 156(1), pages 271-287, July.
    6. Jochen Ranger & Kay Brauer, 2022. "On the Generalized S − X 2 –Test of Item Fit: Some Variants, Residuals, and a Graphical Visualization," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 47(2), pages 202-230, April.
    7. Tormod Bøe & Mari Hysing & Jens Christoffer Skogen & Kyrre Breivik, 2016. "The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ): Factor Structure and Gender Equivalence in Norwegian Adolescents," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-15, May.
    8. Yang Liu & Ji Seung Yang, 2018. "Bootstrap-Calibrated Interval Estimates for Latent Variable Scores in Item Response Theory," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(2), pages 333-354, June.
    9. Shenghai Dai & Dubravka Svetina & Xiaolin Wang, 2017. "Reporting Subscores Using R: A Software Review," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 42(5), pages 617-638, October.
    10. Jinshu Cui & Heather Rosoff & Richard S. John, 2017. "A Polytomous Item Response Theory Model for Measuring Near-Miss Appraisal as a Psychological Trait," Decision Analysis, INFORMS, vol. 14(2), pages 75-86, June.
    11. Lindsey W. Vilca & Evelyn L. Chambi-Mamani & Emely D. Quispe-Kana & Mónica Hernández-López & Tomás Caycho-Rodríguez, 2022. "Functioning of the EROS-R Scale in a Clinical Sample of Psychiatric Patients: New Psychometric Evidence from the Classical Test Theory and the Item Response Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(16), pages 1-14, August.
    12. Michal Ďuriník & Jakub Procházka & Hynek Cígler, 2018. "The Short Maximization Inventory," Judgment and Decision Making, Society for Judgment and Decision Making, vol. 13(1), pages 123-136, January.
    13. Ting Wang & Carolin Strobl & Achim Zeileis & Edgar C. Merkle, 2018. "Score-Based Tests of Differential Item Functioning via Pairwise Maximum Likelihood Estimation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 83(1), pages 132-155, March.
    14. Laura Maldonado-Murciano & Halley M. Pontes & Mark D. Griffiths & Maite Barrios & Juana Gómez-Benito & Georgina Guilera, 2020. "The Spanish Version of the Internet Gaming Disorder Scale-Short Form (IGDS9-SF): Further Examination Using Item Response Theory," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(19), pages 1-14, September.
    15. Benjamin D. Schalet & Sangdon Lim & David Cella & Seung W. Choi, 2021. "Linking Scores with Patient-Reported Health Outcome Instruments:A VALIDATION STUDY AND COMPARISON OF THREE LINKING METHODS," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(3), pages 717-746, September.
    16. Ellen Bernadette Maria Elsman & Gerardus Hermanus Maria Bartholomeus van Rens & Ruth Marie Antoinette van Nispen, 2018. "Psychometric properties of a new intake questionnaire for visually impaired young adults: The Participation and Activity Inventory for Young Adults (PAI-YA)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(8), pages 1-24, August.
    17. Thiago Medeiros Cavalcanti & Gabriel Lins Holanda Coelho & Alessandro Teixeira Rezende & Katia Correa Vione & Valdiney Veloso Gouveia, 2019. "Decisional and Emotional Forgiveness Scales: Psychometric Validity and Correlates with Personality and Vengeance," Applied Research in Quality of Life, Springer;International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies, vol. 14(5), pages 1247-1264, November.
    18. Minjeong Jeon & Paul Boeck & Jevan Luo & Xiangrui Li & Zhong-Lin Lu, 2021. "Modeling Within-Item Dependencies in Parallel Data on Test Responses and Brain Activation," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 86(1), pages 239-271, March.
    19. repec:cup:judgdm:v:13:y:2018:i:1:p:123-136 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Wickelmaier, Florian & Strobl, Carolin & Zeileis, Achim, 2012. "Psychoco: Psychometric Computing in R," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 48(i01).
    21. Myszkowski, Nils & Storme, Martin, 2018. "A snapshot of g? Binary and polytomous item-response theory investigations of the last series of the Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM-LS)," Intelligence, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 109-116.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:16:y:2019:i:2:p:244-:d:198191. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.