Cultural adaptation and validation of the Others as Shamer scale: a barrier to effective health-care assessment

IF 1.2 Q4 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Mahvia Gull, M. Aqeel, Aniqa Kanwal, K. Khan, Tanvir Akhtar
{"title":"Cultural adaptation and validation of the Others as Shamer scale: a barrier to effective health-care assessment","authors":"Mahvia Gull, M. Aqeel, Aniqa Kanwal, K. Khan, Tanvir Akhtar","doi":"10.1108/ijhrh-05-2022-0039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nPurpose\nDespite the fact that shame is recognized as a significant factor in clinical encounters, it is under-recognized, under-researched and under-theorized in health prevention, assessment and cross-cultural contexts. Thus, this study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the most widely used scale, the “Other as Shamer Scale” (OAS), to assess the risk and proclivities of external shame in adults. As in health care, there is a barrier between what is known through research in one culture and what is acceptable in practice in another culture.\n\n\nDesign/methodology/approach\nThe Urdu version was prepared using the standard back-translation method, and the study was conducted from June 2021 to January 2022. The translation and adaptation were completed in four steps: forward translation, adaptation and translation, back translation, committee approach and cross-language validation. The sample, selected through the purposive sampling method, is comprised of 200 adults (men = 100 and women = 100), with an age range of 18–60 years (M = 28, SD = 5.5), spanning all stages of life. The Cronbach's alpha reliability and factorial validity of the OAS were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis and Pearson correlation analyses. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability (at a two-week interval) were used to evaluate the reliability. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 22) software.\n\n\nFindings\nPreliminary analysis revealed that the overall instrument had good internal consistency (Urdu OAS a = 0.91; English OAS a = 0.92) as well as test–retest correlation coefficients for 15 days (r = 0.88). The factor loading of all items ranged from 0.69 to 0.9, which explained the significant level and indicated the model's overall goodness of fit.\n\n\nOriginality/value\nFindings suggest that this scale has significant psychometric properties and the potential to be used as a valid, reliable and cost-effective clinical and research instrument. This study contributes to scientific knowledge and helps to develop and test indigenous cross-cultural instruments that can be used to examine external shame in Pakistani people.\n","PeriodicalId":14129,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-05-2022-0039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose Despite the fact that shame is recognized as a significant factor in clinical encounters, it is under-recognized, under-researched and under-theorized in health prevention, assessment and cross-cultural contexts. Thus, this study aims to investigate the psychometric properties of the most widely used scale, the “Other as Shamer Scale” (OAS), to assess the risk and proclivities of external shame in adults. As in health care, there is a barrier between what is known through research in one culture and what is acceptable in practice in another culture. Design/methodology/approach The Urdu version was prepared using the standard back-translation method, and the study was conducted from June 2021 to January 2022. The translation and adaptation were completed in four steps: forward translation, adaptation and translation, back translation, committee approach and cross-language validation. The sample, selected through the purposive sampling method, is comprised of 200 adults (men = 100 and women = 100), with an age range of 18–60 years (M = 28, SD = 5.5), spanning all stages of life. The Cronbach's alpha reliability and factorial validity of the OAS were assessed through confirmatory factor analysis and Pearson correlation analyses. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability (at a two-week interval) were used to evaluate the reliability. Statistical analyses were performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 22) software. Findings Preliminary analysis revealed that the overall instrument had good internal consistency (Urdu OAS a = 0.91; English OAS a = 0.92) as well as test–retest correlation coefficients for 15 days (r = 0.88). The factor loading of all items ranged from 0.69 to 0.9, which explained the significant level and indicated the model's overall goodness of fit. Originality/value Findings suggest that this scale has significant psychometric properties and the potential to be used as a valid, reliable and cost-effective clinical and research instrument. This study contributes to scientific knowledge and helps to develop and test indigenous cross-cultural instruments that can be used to examine external shame in Pakistani people.
文化适应和认同他者为羞耻者量表:有效卫生保健评估的障碍
尽管羞耻感被认为是临床遭遇中的一个重要因素,但在健康预防、评估和跨文化背景下,羞耻感未得到充分认识、研究和理论化。因此,本研究旨在探讨最广泛使用的量表“他人为羞耻者量表”(OAS)的心理测量特性,以评估成人外部羞耻的风险和倾向。就像在医疗保健领域一样,在一种文化中通过研究了解到的知识和在另一种文化中实践中可以接受的知识之间存在着障碍。设计/方法/方法乌尔都语版本采用标准反译方法编写,研究时间为2021年6月至2022年1月。翻译与改编分正向翻译、改编与翻译、反向翻译、委员会方法和跨语言验证四个步骤完成。本研究采用有目的抽样方法,选取200名成年人(男性100人,女性100人),年龄在18-60岁之间(M = 28, SD = 5.5),跨越了人生的各个阶段。通过验证性因子分析和Pearson相关分析评估OAS的Cronbach's α信度和析因效度。采用内部一致性和重测信度(间隔两周)来评估信度。使用Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 22)软件进行统计分析。初步分析表明,整体仪器具有良好的内部一致性(乌尔都语OAS a = 0.91;英语OAS a = 0.92)以及15天的重测相关系数(r = 0.88)。各项目的因子负荷在0.69 ~ 0.9之间,说明了模型的显著性水平,说明了模型的整体拟合优度。原创性/价值研究结果表明,该量表具有显著的心理测量特性,有望成为一种有效、可靠和具有成本效益的临床和研究工具。这项研究有助于科学知识的发展,并有助于开发和测试可用于检查巴基斯坦人外部羞耻感的土著跨文化工具。
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
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: nternational Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare (IJHRH) is an international, peer reviewed journal with a unique practical approach to promoting race equality, inclusion and human rights in health and social care. The journal publishes scholarly and double blind peer-reviewed papers of the highest standard, including case studies and book reviews. IJHRH aims include: -To explore what is currently known about discrimination and disadvantage with a particular focus on health and social care -Push the barriers of the human rights discourse by identifying new avenues for healthcare practice and policy internationally -Create bridges between policymakers, practitioners and researchers -Identify and understand the social determinants of health equity and practical interventions to overcome barriers at national and international levels. The journal welcomes papers which use varied approaches, including discussion of theory, comparative studies, systematic evaluation of interventions, analysis of qualitative data and study of health and social care institutions and the political process. Papers published in IJHRH: -Clearly demonstrate the implications of the research -Provide evidence-rich information -Provoke reflection and support critical analysis of both challenges and strengths -Share examples of best practice and ‘what works’, including user perspectives IJHRH is a hugely valuable source of information for researchers, academics, students, practitioners, managers, policy-makers, commissioning bodies, social workers, psychologists, nurses, voluntary sector workers, service users and carers internationally.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信