心理健康素养量表(MHLS)的测量特性:系统回顾

IF 3.8 4区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY Asian journal of psychiatry Pub Date : 2024-08-30 DOI:10.1016/j.ajp.2024.104214
{"title":"心理健康素养量表(MHLS)的测量特性:系统回顾","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.ajp.2024.104214","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Since its creation, the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) has been used worldwide in mental health literacy studies.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to systematically evaluate, summarize, and compare the measurement properties of MHLS validation studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched from May 30, 2015, to December 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed studies validating the MHLS and its measurement properties were included, irrespective of language, study population, and setting. Studies using the MHLS as an outcome measure, as a comparative instrument to validate another instrument, or using other MHL measures and grey literature was excluded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 685 search results, 16 studies were deemed eligible. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB criteria showed 15/15 studies exhibited ‘Very Good’ or ‘Adequate’ internal consistency, 3/6 reliability, 1/8 content validity, 14/14 structural validity, 6/7 hypothesis testing for convergent validity, 2/7 hypothesis testing for known-group validity, and 0/1 error measurement. The Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.720 to 0.890, and the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.741 to 0.99, while content validity was limited regarding the quality of evidence rating. The four-factor and unidimensional structures were 35.7 % and 28.6 %, respectively, the most common models.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The MHLS exhibited strong evidence of construct validity and reliability, ensuring consistent and accurate evaluation of MHL and improving research credibility and generalizability. However, the low number of identical language versions of MHLS studies prohibited statistical pooling and quantitative summaries.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":8543,"journal":{"name":"Asian journal of psychiatry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201824003071/pdfft?md5=d00e10d5140cc4525331b6330d47dc13&pid=1-s2.0-S1876201824003071-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measurement properties of the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS): A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ajp.2024.104214\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Since its creation, the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) has been used worldwide in mental health literacy studies.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>This study aimed to systematically evaluate, summarize, and compare the measurement properties of MHLS validation studies.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched from May 30, 2015, to December 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed studies validating the MHLS and its measurement properties were included, irrespective of language, study population, and setting. Studies using the MHLS as an outcome measure, as a comparative instrument to validate another instrument, or using other MHL measures and grey literature was excluded.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Of the 685 search results, 16 studies were deemed eligible. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB criteria showed 15/15 studies exhibited ‘Very Good’ or ‘Adequate’ internal consistency, 3/6 reliability, 1/8 content validity, 14/14 structural validity, 6/7 hypothesis testing for convergent validity, 2/7 hypothesis testing for known-group validity, and 0/1 error measurement. The Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.720 to 0.890, and the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.741 to 0.99, while content validity was limited regarding the quality of evidence rating. The four-factor and unidimensional structures were 35.7 % and 28.6 %, respectively, the most common models.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>The MHLS exhibited strong evidence of construct validity and reliability, ensuring consistent and accurate evaluation of MHL and improving research credibility and generalizability. However, the low number of identical language versions of MHLS studies prohibited statistical pooling and quantitative summaries.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8543,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Asian journal of psychiatry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201824003071/pdfft?md5=d00e10d5140cc4525331b6330d47dc13&pid=1-s2.0-S1876201824003071-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Asian journal of psychiatry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201824003071\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Asian journal of psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876201824003071","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景心理健康素养量表(MHLS)自问世以来,一直被广泛应用于全球范围内的心理健康素养研究中。方法检索了2015年5月30日至2023年12月31日期间的PsycINFO、CINAHL、ERIC、Scopus、Embase、MEDLINE和PubMed数据库。不论语言、研究人群和环境如何,均纳入了验证 MHLS 及其测量特性的同行评议研究。排除了将 MHLS 作为结果测量指标、作为验证其他指标的比较工具或使用其他 MHL 测量指标的研究以及灰色文献。根据基于共识的健康状况测量工具选择标准(COSMIN)的 RoB 标准,15/15 项研究显示出 "很好 "或 "足够 "的内部一致性、3/6 的可靠性、1/8 的内容有效性、14/14 的结构有效性、6/7 的收敛有效性假设检验、2/7 的已知组有效性假设检验和 0/1 的误差测量。Cronbach's alpha 在 0.720 至 0.890 之间,类内相关系数在 0.741 至 0.99 之间,而内容效度在证据质量评级方面受到限制。四因素结构和单维结构分别占 35.7% 和 28.6%,是最常见的模型。结论 MHLS 显示出很强的建构效度和信度,确保了对 MHL 评估的一致性和准确性,提高了研究的可信度和可推广性。然而,由于相同语言版本的 MHLS 研究数量较少,因此无法进行统计汇总和定量总结。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Measurement properties of the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS): A systematic review

Background

Since its creation, the Mental Health Literacy Scale (MHLS) has been used worldwide in mental health literacy studies.

Objective

This study aimed to systematically evaluate, summarize, and compare the measurement properties of MHLS validation studies.

Methods

PsycINFO, CINAHL, ERIC, Scopus, Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed databases were searched from May 30, 2015, to December 31, 2023. Peer-reviewed studies validating the MHLS and its measurement properties were included, irrespective of language, study population, and setting. Studies using the MHLS as an outcome measure, as a comparative instrument to validate another instrument, or using other MHL measures and grey literature was excluded.

Results

Of the 685 search results, 16 studies were deemed eligible. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) RoB criteria showed 15/15 studies exhibited ‘Very Good’ or ‘Adequate’ internal consistency, 3/6 reliability, 1/8 content validity, 14/14 structural validity, 6/7 hypothesis testing for convergent validity, 2/7 hypothesis testing for known-group validity, and 0/1 error measurement. The Cronbach’s alpha ranged from 0.720 to 0.890, and the Intra-class Correlation Coefficient ranged from 0.741 to 0.99, while content validity was limited regarding the quality of evidence rating. The four-factor and unidimensional structures were 35.7 % and 28.6 %, respectively, the most common models.

Conclusion

The MHLS exhibited strong evidence of construct validity and reliability, ensuring consistent and accurate evaluation of MHL and improving research credibility and generalizability. However, the low number of identical language versions of MHLS studies prohibited statistical pooling and quantitative summaries.

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
Asian journal of psychiatry
Asian journal of psychiatry Medicine-Psychiatry and Mental Health
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
5.30%
发文量
297
审稿时长
35 days
期刊介绍: The Asian Journal of Psychiatry serves as a comprehensive resource for psychiatrists, mental health clinicians, neurologists, physicians, mental health students, and policymakers. Its goal is to facilitate the exchange of research findings and clinical practices between Asia and the global community. The journal focuses on psychiatric research relevant to Asia, covering preclinical, clinical, service system, and policy development topics. It also highlights the socio-cultural diversity of the region in relation to mental health.
期刊最新文献
2024 FDA-approved psychotropic medications: A conspectus Abnormal resting-state functional connectivity of the right anterior cingulate cortex in chronic ketamine users and its correlation with cognitive impairments Cardiometabolic biomarkers and comorbid metabolic syndrome in schizophrenia: A cross-sectional study of long-term clozapine/olanzapine users Management of tardive dyskinesia and tardive dystonia with clozapine: A retrospective study Genome-wide association study and polygenic risk score analysis for schizophrenia in a Korean population
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1