Measuring the felt sense of dehumanization: A COSMIN systematic review of the psychometric properties of self- and meta-dehumanization measures.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Tom A Jenkins, Hannah Pendlebury, Spencer L Smith
{"title":"Measuring the felt sense of dehumanization: A COSMIN systematic review of the psychometric properties of self- and meta-dehumanization measures.","authors":"Tom A Jenkins, Hannah Pendlebury, Spencer L Smith","doi":"10.1111/bjop.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is increasing awareness of the clinical relevance of self- and meta-dehumanization. With various measures available for use, evidence of robust reliability and validity is essential before implementation. This review aimed to evaluate the psychometric strength and methodological quality of self- and meta-dehumanization measures and make recommendations for practice using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidance. A systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus was conducted to identify studies reporting on the development or validation of a measure of self- or meta-dehumanization. Of 5190 records, 26 studies containing 29 distinct outcome measures were identified (14 self-dehumanization and 15 meta-dehumanization). In general, there was a lack of involvement from people with lived experience in measure development, leading to very low quality of evidence for content validity. Strength and quality of other psychometric properties varied, with only some measures demonstrating sufficient high-quality ratings. Based on COSMIN guidance, only one measure, the Experience of Dehumanization Measure (Golossenko et al., Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 62, 2023, 1285), can be currently recommended for use. It is recommended that future research looks to: (1) improve efforts to validate existing measures and (2) develop gold standard measures in collaboration with people with lived experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":9300,"journal":{"name":"British journal of psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.70017","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There is increasing awareness of the clinical relevance of self- and meta-dehumanization. With various measures available for use, evidence of robust reliability and validity is essential before implementation. This review aimed to evaluate the psychometric strength and methodological quality of self- and meta-dehumanization measures and make recommendations for practice using Consensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidance. A systematic search of Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO and Scopus was conducted to identify studies reporting on the development or validation of a measure of self- or meta-dehumanization. Of 5190 records, 26 studies containing 29 distinct outcome measures were identified (14 self-dehumanization and 15 meta-dehumanization). In general, there was a lack of involvement from people with lived experience in measure development, leading to very low quality of evidence for content validity. Strength and quality of other psychometric properties varied, with only some measures demonstrating sufficient high-quality ratings. Based on COSMIN guidance, only one measure, the Experience of Dehumanization Measure (Golossenko et al., Br. J. Soc. Psychol., 62, 2023, 1285), can be currently recommended for use. It is recommended that future research looks to: (1) improve efforts to validate existing measures and (2) develop gold standard measures in collaboration with people with lived experience.

测量去人性化的感觉:一个COSMIN对自我和元去人性化测量的心理测量特性的系统回顾。
人们越来越意识到自我和元非人性化的临床意义。由于有各种可供使用的测量方法,在实施之前必须有可靠和有效的证据。本综述旨在评估自我和元非人性化测量的心理测量强度和方法质量,并根据基于共识的健康测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)指南提出实践建议。我们对Web of Science、PubMed、PsycINFO和Scopus进行了系统的搜索,以确定关于自我或元非人性化措施的发展或验证的研究报告。在5190份记录中,确定了26项研究,包含29项不同的结果测量(14项自我非人化和15项元非人化)。总的来说,缺乏有实际经验的人参与测量开发,导致内容效度的证据质量非常低。其他心理测量属性的强度和质量各不相同,只有一些测量显示出足够的高质量评级。基于COSMIN的指导,只有一个测量,即去人性化体验测量(Golossenko et al., Br。j . Soc。Psychol。, 62, 2023, 1285),目前可以推荐使用。建议未来的研究着眼于:(1)改进验证现有措施的努力;(2)与有生活经验的人合作制定金标准措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
British journal of psychology
British journal of psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
2.50%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Psychology publishes original research on all aspects of general psychology including cognition; health and clinical psychology; developmental, social and occupational psychology. For information on specific requirements, please view Notes for Contributors. We attract a large number of international submissions each year which make major contributions across the range of psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信