Perceived Alcohol Stigma: Factor Structure and Construct Validation
Perceived Alcohol Stigma: Factor Structure and Construct Validation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1530-0277.2012.01887.x
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
3.2
通讯作者：
Bucholz, Kathleen K.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Glass, Joseph E.;Kristjansson, Sean D.;Bucholz, Kathleen K.
前言：人们对酒精使用障碍(AUDS)污名的研究越来越感兴趣，但很少有研究对酒精污名的概念化和测量进行评估。本研究考察了酒精适应感知贬值歧视量表(PDD)的测量性质(即因素结构)和效度，该量表用于评估感知酒精污名(PAS)的结构。方法我们的样本包括34,386名来自全国酒精及相关疾病流行病学调查第二波评估的受访者，这是一项针对非制度化美国成年人的具有人口代表性的调查。分析方法包括验证性因素分析和结构方程建模。结果用潜在法因子调整项目措辞效应时，单因素(感知贬值辨别力)和2因素(感知贬值、感知辨别力)验证性因素分析模型与数据拟合良好(比较拟合指数=0.958，Tucker-Lewis指数=0.942，逼近均方误差=0.056；比较拟合指数=0.962，Tucker-Lewis指数=0.946，逼近均方误差=0.054)。尽管2(1)=542，p<；0.0001这两个因素与数据有更好的拟合，但这两个因素高度相关(r=0.9)，这导致我们倾向于单因素模型。结构方程模型发现，PAS与感受到的人际社会支持之间的反向关系对于带有污名化标签地位的人来说最强。在预测社交网络参与度的分析中，情况并非如此。结论PAS的单因素解具有较好的简洁性。酒精适应的PDD似乎是一种心理测量学上的健全测量，并显示出与修改后的标签理论一致的关系。
Introduction There has been an increasing interest in studying the stigma of alcohol use disorders (AUDs) yet scant research has evaluated the conceptualization and measurement of alcohol stigma. This study examined the measurement properties (i.e., factor structure) and validity of the alcohol-adapted Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination scale (PDD), which assesses the construct of perceived alcohol stigma (PAS). Methods Our sample included 34,386 respondents from the Wave 2 assessment in the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a population-representative survey of noninstitutionalized U.S. adults. Analytic procedures included confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Results One-factor (perceived devaluationdiscrimination) and 2-factor (perceived devaluation, perceived discrimination) confirmatory factor analytic models fit the data well (Comparative Fit Index = 0.958, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.942, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.056; Comparative Fit Index = 0.962, Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.946, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.054; respectively) when adjusting for item wording effects with a latent method factor. Despite having a better fit to the data, ?2 (1) = 542, p < 0.0001, the 2 factors were highly correlated (r = 0.90), which led us to favor a 1-factor model. Structural equation models found that the inverse relationship between PAS and perceived interpersonal social support was strongest for persons with a stigmatized labeling status. The same was not true in analyses predicting social network involvement. Conclusions A 1-factor solution of PAS had superior parsimony. The alcohol-adapted PDD appears to be a psychometrically sound measure and exhibits relationships that are consistent with modified labeling theory.