Stephanie A. Houle , Natalie Ein , Julia Gervasio , Rachel A. Plouffe , Brett T. Litz , R. Nicholas Carleton , Kevin T. Hansen , Jenny J.W. Liu , Andrea R. Ashbaugh , Walter Callaghan , Megan M. Thompson , Bethany Easterbrook , Lorraine Smith-MacDonald , Sara Rodrigues , Stéphanie A.H. Bélanger , Katherine Bright , Ruth A. Lanius , Clara Baker , William Younger , Suzette Bremault-Phillips , Anthony Nazarov
{"title":"Measuring moral distress and moral injury: A systematic review and content analysis of existing scales","authors":"Stephanie A. Houle , Natalie Ein , Julia Gervasio , Rachel A. Plouffe , Brett T. Litz , R. Nicholas Carleton , Kevin T. Hansen , Jenny J.W. Liu , Andrea R. Ashbaugh , Walter Callaghan , Megan M. Thompson , Bethany Easterbrook , Lorraine Smith-MacDonald , Sara Rodrigues , Stéphanie A.H. Bélanger , Katherine Bright , Ruth A. Lanius , Clara Baker , William Younger , Suzette Bremault-Phillips , Anthony Nazarov","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Moral distress (MD) and moral injury (MI) are related constructs describing the negative consequences of morally challenging stressors. Despite growing support for the clinical relevance of these constructs, ongoing challenges regarding measurement quality risk limiting research and clinical advances. This study summarizes the nature, quality, and utility of existing MD and MI scales, and provides recommendations for future use.</p></div><div><h3>Method</h3><p>We identified psychometric studies describing the development or validation of MD or MI scales and extracted information on methodological and psychometric qualities. Content analyses identified specific outcomes measured by each scale.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We reviewed 77 studies representing 42 unique scales. The quality of psychometric approaches varied greatly across studies, and most failed to examine convergent and divergent validity. Content analyses indicated most scales measure exposures to potential moral stressors and outcomes together, with relatively few measuring only exposures (<em>n</em> = 3) or outcomes (<em>n</em> = 7). Scales using the term MD typically assess general distress. Scales using the term MI typically assess several specific outcomes.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Results show how the terms MD and MI are applied in research. Several scales were identified as appropriate for research and clinical use. Recommendations for the application, development, and validation of MD and MI scales are provided.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":"108 ","pages":"Article 102377"},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001356/pdfft?md5=f7a9ba62f0a5fcb2a2c9a7ca38c63343&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735823001356-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735823001356","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background
Moral distress (MD) and moral injury (MI) are related constructs describing the negative consequences of morally challenging stressors. Despite growing support for the clinical relevance of these constructs, ongoing challenges regarding measurement quality risk limiting research and clinical advances. This study summarizes the nature, quality, and utility of existing MD and MI scales, and provides recommendations for future use.
Method
We identified psychometric studies describing the development or validation of MD or MI scales and extracted information on methodological and psychometric qualities. Content analyses identified specific outcomes measured by each scale.
Results
We reviewed 77 studies representing 42 unique scales. The quality of psychometric approaches varied greatly across studies, and most failed to examine convergent and divergent validity. Content analyses indicated most scales measure exposures to potential moral stressors and outcomes together, with relatively few measuring only exposures (n = 3) or outcomes (n = 7). Scales using the term MD typically assess general distress. Scales using the term MI typically assess several specific outcomes.
Conclusions
Results show how the terms MD and MI are applied in research. Several scales were identified as appropriate for research and clinical use. Recommendations for the application, development, and validation of MD and MI scales are provided.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology.
While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.