A Preliminary Validation of the Korean Version of the Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA-4): Psychometric Properties and Healthcare Provider Stigma.
Ki Doh Kim, Hye Young Park, Haeji Shin, Hong Jin Jeon
{"title":"A Preliminary Validation of the Korean Version of the Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA-4): Psychometric Properties and Healthcare Provider Stigma.","authors":"Ki Doh Kim, Hye Young Park, Haeji Shin, Hong Jin Jeon","doi":"10.30773/pi.2026.0149","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Mental illness-related stigma among healthcare providers constitutes a critical barrier to care. The Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA-4) is a validated measure of healthcare provider stigma, but no Korean-language version exists. Our objective was to develop and validate a Korean version of the MICA-4, examining psychometric properties and associations with healthcare provider characteristics.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-two healthcare workers completed the Korean MICA-4. Following rigorous forward and back translation, exploratory factor analysis examined the instrument's structure. Group comparisons tested associations between MICA-4 scores and provider characteristics (specialty, experience, education).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Internal consistency was acceptable (α=0.673). An exploratory five-factor structure, broadly consistent with the original instrument, was identified and provisionally retained for interpretation, given the modest sample size and preliminary nature of the study. Psychiatry specialists demonstrated significantly less stigmatizing attitudes than non-psychiatry professionals (M=42.90 vs. 50.08, p<0.001). Mental health education completion within the past 12 months showed the strongest association with reduced stigma (p<0.001). Longer clinical experience was associated with higher stigma. Age, gender, and contact frequency were not significantly associated with stigma scores.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The Korean MICA-4 shows preliminary evidence of reliability and validity for assessing healthcare provider stigma in Korea, although further validation with larger and more diverse samples is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. The substantial association between recent mental health education and lower stigma suggests that targeted training programs could be a promising strategy to reduce stigma among healthcare professionals.</p>","PeriodicalId":21164,"journal":{"name":"Psychiatry Investigation","volume":" ","pages":"1343-1351"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13668407/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychiatry Investigation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30773/pi.2026.0149","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/9/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Mental illness-related stigma among healthcare providers constitutes a critical barrier to care. The Mental Illness: Clinicians' Attitudes Scale (MICA-4) is a validated measure of healthcare provider stigma, but no Korean-language version exists. Our objective was to develop and validate a Korean version of the MICA-4, examining psychometric properties and associations with healthcare provider characteristics.
Methods: Ninety-two healthcare workers completed the Korean MICA-4. Following rigorous forward and back translation, exploratory factor analysis examined the instrument's structure. Group comparisons tested associations between MICA-4 scores and provider characteristics (specialty, experience, education).
Results: Internal consistency was acceptable (α=0.673). An exploratory five-factor structure, broadly consistent with the original instrument, was identified and provisionally retained for interpretation, given the modest sample size and preliminary nature of the study. Psychiatry specialists demonstrated significantly less stigmatizing attitudes than non-psychiatry professionals (M=42.90 vs. 50.08, p<0.001). Mental health education completion within the past 12 months showed the strongest association with reduced stigma (p<0.001). Longer clinical experience was associated with higher stigma. Age, gender, and contact frequency were not significantly associated with stigma scores.
Conclusion: The Korean MICA-4 shows preliminary evidence of reliability and validity for assessing healthcare provider stigma in Korea, although further validation with larger and more diverse samples is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. The substantial association between recent mental health education and lower stigma suggests that targeted training programs could be a promising strategy to reduce stigma among healthcare professionals.
目的：精神疾病相关的耻辱感在医疗服务提供者中构成了一个重要的障碍。心理疾病：临床医生态度量表（MICA-4）是一种有效的衡量医疗保健提供者耻辱的措施，但没有韩文版本存在。我们的目标是开发和验证MICA-4的韩国版本，检查心理测量特性及其与医疗保健提供者特征的关联。方法：92名医护人员完成韩国MICA-4量表。在严格的前后翻译之后，探索性因素分析检查了仪器的结构。组间比较测试了MICA-4分数与提供者特征（专业、经验、教育）之间的关系。结果：内部一致性可接受（α=0.673）。一个探索性的五因素结构，与原始工具大致一致，被确定并暂时保留解释，考虑到适度的样本量和研究的初步性质。精神病学专家比非精神病学专业人员表现出更少的污名化态度（M=42.90 vs. 50.08）。结论：韩国MICA-4显示了评估韩国医疗保健提供者污名化的可靠性和有效性的初步证据，尽管在得出确定的结论之前需要更大更多样化的样本进一步验证。最近的心理健康教育与降低耻辱感之间的实质性联系表明，有针对性的培训计划可能是一种有希望的策略，以减少医疗保健专业人员的耻辱感。
期刊介绍：
The Psychiatry Investigation is published on the 25th day of every month in English by the Korean Neuropsychiatric Association (KNPA). The Journal covers the whole range of psychiatry and neuroscience. Both basic and clinical contributions are encouraged from all disciplines and research areas relevant to the pathophysiology and management of neuropsychiatric disorders and symptoms, as well as researches related to cross cultural psychiatry and ethnic issues in psychiatry. The Journal publishes editorials, review articles, original articles, brief reports, viewpoints and correspondences. All research articles are peer reviewed. Contributions are accepted for publication on the condition that their substance has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Authors submitting papers to the Journal (serially or otherwise) with a common theme or using data derived from the same sample (or a subset thereof) must send details of all relevant previous publications and simultaneous submissions. The Journal is not responsible for statements made by contributors. Material in the Journal does not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor or of the KNPA. Manuscripts accepted for publication are copy-edited to improve readability and to ensure conformity with house style.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
