Isabel Hartner, William S Brooks, Tanvee Sinha, Ashley Parish, Donald H Lein, Elizabeth Wylie, Cathy Carver, David Goretzko, Adam B Wilson
{"title":"衡量健康科学学生对残疾人的态度:一个量表比另一个更好吗?","authors":"Isabel Hartner, William S Brooks, Tanvee Sinha, Ashley Parish, Donald H Lein, Elizabeth Wylie, Cathy Carver, David Goretzko, Adam B Wilson","doi":"10.1002/ase.2546","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities (PWDs) can lead to stigmatization and exclusion, underscoring the need for effective tools to measure and address such attitudes in educational settings. This study compares the psychometric properties of two scales used to assess attitudes toward PWDs among health science learners: the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons with Disabilities (MAS) and the Attitudes and Perspectives Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale (APPD). This research examines the internal consistency, factor stability, factor replicability, and convergent validity of these scales across different measurement occasions using data from second-year Medical (n = 102) and Doctor of Physical Therapy (n = 39) students. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with bootstrapping revealed that both scales yielded three-factor solutions with varying degrees of factor stability and replicability. The MAS's three-factor structure-Affect, Cognitive, and Behavioral-demonstrated stronger internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.838) and better factor replicability (Tucker congruence coefficients ≥0.88) than the APPD across pre- and post-intervention datasets. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted as a second test of replicability and revealed that neither scale demonstrated ideal model fit when applying post-intervention data to the pre-intervention measurement model. Convergent validity analysis indicated a medium positive correlation between MAS and APPD scores (r = 0.368, p < 0.001), suggesting only moderate overlap in the constructs they measure. When used with health sciences students, the MAS demonstrated superior psychometric properties compared to the APPD. However, both scales showed limitations and inconsistencies across measurement occasions, highlighting the need for further refinement and validation.</p>","PeriodicalId":124,"journal":{"name":"Anatomical Sciences Education","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring health sciences students' attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Is one scale better than another?\",\"authors\":\"Isabel Hartner, William S Brooks, Tanvee Sinha, Ashley Parish, Donald H Lein, Elizabeth Wylie, Cathy Carver, David Goretzko, Adam B Wilson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/ase.2546\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities (PWDs) can lead to stigmatization and exclusion, underscoring the need for effective tools to measure and address such attitudes in educational settings. This study compares the psychometric properties of two scales used to assess attitudes toward PWDs among health science learners: the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons with Disabilities (MAS) and the Attitudes and Perspectives Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale (APPD). This research examines the internal consistency, factor stability, factor replicability, and convergent validity of these scales across different measurement occasions using data from second-year Medical (n = 102) and Doctor of Physical Therapy (n = 39) students. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with bootstrapping revealed that both scales yielded three-factor solutions with varying degrees of factor stability and replicability. The MAS's three-factor structure-Affect, Cognitive, and Behavioral-demonstrated stronger internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.838) and better factor replicability (Tucker congruence coefficients ≥0.88) than the APPD across pre- and post-intervention datasets. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted as a second test of replicability and revealed that neither scale demonstrated ideal model fit when applying post-intervention data to the pre-intervention measurement model. Convergent validity analysis indicated a medium positive correlation between MAS and APPD scores (r = 0.368, p < 0.001), suggesting only moderate overlap in the constructs they measure. When used with health sciences students, the MAS demonstrated superior psychometric properties compared to the APPD. However, both scales showed limitations and inconsistencies across measurement occasions, highlighting the need for further refinement and validation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":124,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Anatomical Sciences Education\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Anatomical Sciences Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2546\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"教育学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anatomical Sciences Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.2546","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
对残疾人的消极态度可能导致污名化和排斥,因此需要有效的工具来衡量和解决教育环境中的这种态度。本研究比较了健康科学学习者对残障人士态度的多维度量表(MAS)和对残障人士的态度和观点量表(APPD)的心理测量特征。本研究使用来自医学二年级(n = 102)和物理治疗博士(n = 39)的数据,检验了这些量表在不同测量情境下的内部一致性、因素稳定性、因素可复制性和收敛效度。探索性因子分析(EFA)与bootstrapping显示,这两个量表产生的三因素解决方案具有不同程度的因素稳定性和可复制性。MAS的三因素结构-情感、认知和行为-在干预前和干预后比APPD表现出更强的内部一致性(Cronbach's alpha≥0.838)和更好的因素可复制性(Tucker一致性系数≥0.88)。验证性因子分析作为可复制性的第二次检验,发现在将干预后数据应用于干预前测量模型时,两个量表都没有表现出理想的模型拟合。收敛效度分析显示,MAS与APPD评分呈中等正相关(r = 0.368, p
Measuring health sciences students' attitudes toward persons with disabilities: Is one scale better than another?
Negative attitudes toward persons with disabilities (PWDs) can lead to stigmatization and exclusion, underscoring the need for effective tools to measure and address such attitudes in educational settings. This study compares the psychometric properties of two scales used to assess attitudes toward PWDs among health science learners: the Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons with Disabilities (MAS) and the Attitudes and Perspectives Toward Persons with Disabilities Scale (APPD). This research examines the internal consistency, factor stability, factor replicability, and convergent validity of these scales across different measurement occasions using data from second-year Medical (n = 102) and Doctor of Physical Therapy (n = 39) students. An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with bootstrapping revealed that both scales yielded three-factor solutions with varying degrees of factor stability and replicability. The MAS's three-factor structure-Affect, Cognitive, and Behavioral-demonstrated stronger internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha ≥0.838) and better factor replicability (Tucker congruence coefficients ≥0.88) than the APPD across pre- and post-intervention datasets. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted as a second test of replicability and revealed that neither scale demonstrated ideal model fit when applying post-intervention data to the pre-intervention measurement model. Convergent validity analysis indicated a medium positive correlation between MAS and APPD scores (r = 0.368, p < 0.001), suggesting only moderate overlap in the constructs they measure. When used with health sciences students, the MAS demonstrated superior psychometric properties compared to the APPD. However, both scales showed limitations and inconsistencies across measurement occasions, highlighting the need for further refinement and validation.
期刊介绍:
Anatomical Sciences Education, affiliated with the American Association for Anatomy, serves as an international platform for sharing ideas, innovations, and research related to education in anatomical sciences. Covering gross anatomy, embryology, histology, and neurosciences, the journal addresses education at various levels, including undergraduate, graduate, post-graduate, allied health, medical (both allopathic and osteopathic), and dental. It fosters collaboration and discussion in the field of anatomical sciences education.