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?

IF 5.2 2区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES
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
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Anatomical Sciences Education
Anatomical Sciences Education Anatomy/education-
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
39.70%
发文量
91
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.
×
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