Cargando…
Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
BACKGROUND: Suicide is a public health concern, with an estimated 1 million individuals dying each year worldwide. Individual psychological pain is believed to be a contributing motivating factor. Therefore, establishing a psychometrically sound tool to adequately measure psychological pain is impor...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127506/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8 |
_version_ | 1783693961404088320 |
---|---|
author | Casanova, Madeline P. Nelson, Megan C. Pickering, Michael A. Appleby, Karen M. Grindley, Emma J. Larkins, Lindsay W. Baker, Russell T. |
author_facet | Casanova, Madeline P. Nelson, Megan C. Pickering, Michael A. Appleby, Karen M. Grindley, Emma J. Larkins, Lindsay W. Baker, Russell T. |
author_sort | Casanova, Madeline P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Suicide is a public health concern, with an estimated 1 million individuals dying each year worldwide. Individual psychological pain is believed to be a contributing motivating factor. Therefore, establishing a psychometrically sound tool to adequately measure psychological pain is important. The Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale (OMMP) has been proposed; however, previous psychometric analysis on the OMMP has not yielded a consistent scale structure, and the internal consistency of the subscales has not met recommended values. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the OMMP in a diverse sample. METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 9-factor, 44-item OMMP was conducted on the full sample (n = 1151). Because model fit indices were not met, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random subset of the data (n = 576) to identify a more parsimonious structure. The EFA structure was then tested in a covariance model in the remaining subset of participants (n = 575). Multigroup invariance testing was subsequently performed to examine psychometric properties of the refined scale. RESULTS: The CFA of the original 9-factor, 44-item OMMP did not meet recommended model fit recommendations. The EFA analysis results revealed a 3-factor, 9-item scale (i.e., OMMP-9). The covariance model of the OMMP-9 indicated further refinement was necessary. Multigroup invariance testing conducted on the final 3-factor, 8-item scale (i.e., OMMP-8) across mental health diagnoses, sex, injury status, age, activity level, and athlete classification met all criteria for invariance. CONCLUSIONS: The 9-factor, 44-item OMMP does not meet recommended measurement criteria and should not be recommended for use in research and clinical practice in its current form. The refined OMMP-8 may be a more viable option to use; however, more research should be completed prior to adoption. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8127506 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81275062021-05-18 Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale Casanova, Madeline P. Nelson, Megan C. Pickering, Michael A. Appleby, Karen M. Grindley, Emma J. Larkins, Lindsay W. Baker, Russell T. Meas Instrum Soc Sci Validation of Measurement Instruments BACKGROUND: Suicide is a public health concern, with an estimated 1 million individuals dying each year worldwide. Individual psychological pain is believed to be a contributing motivating factor. Therefore, establishing a psychometrically sound tool to adequately measure psychological pain is important. The Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale (OMMP) has been proposed; however, previous psychometric analysis on the OMMP has not yielded a consistent scale structure, and the internal consistency of the subscales has not met recommended values. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the OMMP in a diverse sample. METHODS: A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 9-factor, 44-item OMMP was conducted on the full sample (n = 1151). Because model fit indices were not met, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random subset of the data (n = 576) to identify a more parsimonious structure. The EFA structure was then tested in a covariance model in the remaining subset of participants (n = 575). Multigroup invariance testing was subsequently performed to examine psychometric properties of the refined scale. RESULTS: The CFA of the original 9-factor, 44-item OMMP did not meet recommended model fit recommendations. The EFA analysis results revealed a 3-factor, 9-item scale (i.e., OMMP-9). The covariance model of the OMMP-9 indicated further refinement was necessary. Multigroup invariance testing conducted on the final 3-factor, 8-item scale (i.e., OMMP-8) across mental health diagnoses, sex, injury status, age, activity level, and athlete classification met all criteria for invariance. CONCLUSIONS: The 9-factor, 44-item OMMP does not meet recommended measurement criteria and should not be recommended for use in research and clinical practice in its current form. The refined OMMP-8 may be a more viable option to use; however, more research should be completed prior to adoption. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8. BioMed Central 2021-05-17 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8127506/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Validation of Measurement Instruments Casanova, Madeline P. Nelson, Megan C. Pickering, Michael A. Appleby, Karen M. Grindley, Emma J. Larkins, Lindsay W. Baker, Russell T. Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale |
title | Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale |
title_full | Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale |
title_fullStr | Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale |
title_full_unstemmed | Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale |
title_short | Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale |
title_sort | measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the orbach and mikulincer mental pain scale |
topic | Validation of Measurement Instruments |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8127506/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT casanovamadelinep measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale AT nelsonmeganc measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale AT pickeringmichaela measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale AT applebykarenm measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale AT grindleyemmaj measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale AT larkinslindsayw measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale AT bakerrussellt measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale |