{"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.
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.