Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Version of the Mental Illness: Clinicians’ Attitudes Scale (Medical Student Version) (MICA 2)

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 2, 58 - 67, 26.06.2023

Murat Aksu , Semra Ay

Öz

Objective: This study was conducted to test the validity and reliability of the MICA 2 scale for Turkish medical school students. Material and Method: The sample of this methodologically conducted study consisted of Turkish medical faculty students (n=185) who had/have received psychiatry internship training. Data were collected with the Sociodemographic Information Form and the MICA 2 questionnaire. Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used for descriptive statistics and reliability in the analysis of the data. Construct validity, exploratory factor analysis, and confirmatory factor analysis were used to test the validity of the scale. Results: The mean (±standard deviation) total score of the MICA 2 scale was 45.23±9.11. The Cronbach's alpha coefficient, which shows the internal consistency of the scale, was determined as 0.739 for MICA 2. The fit indices of the MICA scale for Turkish medical school students are CFI=0.955, RMSEA=0.039, TLI=0.944, GFI=0.925, and IFI=0.957, and it can be said that the scale has good fit values. Conclusion: In this study, it was determined that the Turkish version of the Attitudes of Clinicians/Students towards Individuals with Mental Disease (MICA 2) Scale is a valid and reliable scale for Turkish medical school students.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Stigma, medical student, MICA 2, psychometric properties, validity, reliability

Mental Hastalığı Olan Bireylere Karşı Klinisyenlerin (Tıp Öğrencileri) Tutum Ölçeğinin (MICA 2) Türkçe Versiyonu Psikometrik Özellikleri

Öz

Amaç: Bu çalışma, MICA 2 ölçeğinin Türk tıp fakültesi öğrencileri için geçerlilik ve güvenilirliğini sınamak amacıyla yapıldı. Gereç ve Yöntem: Metodolojik olarak gerçekleştirilen bu araştırmanın örneklemi psikiyatri staj eğitimi almış/alan (n=185) Türk tıp fakültesi öğrenciden oluştu. Veriler Sosyodemografik Bilgi Formu ve MICA 2 anketi ile toplandı. Verilerin analizinde tanımlayıcı istatistikler ve güvenilirlik için Cronbach alfa katsayısı kullanıldı. Ölçeğin geçerliliği sınamak için yapı geçerliliği, açıklayıcı faktör analizi ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizi ile yapıldı. Bulgular: MICA 2 ölçeğinin ortalama (±standart sapma) toplam puanı 45,23±9,11 olarak elde edildi. Ölçeğin iç tutarlılığını gösteren Cronbach alfa katsayısı MICA 2 için 0,739 olarak belirlendi. Türk tıp fakültesi öğrencileri için MICA ölçeğine ilişkin uyum indisleri CFI=0,955, RMSEA=0,039, TLI=0,944, GFI=0,925, IFI=0,957 olup ölçeğin iyi uyum değerlerine sahip olduğu söylenebilir. Sonuç: Bu araştırmada Mental Hastalığı Olan Bireylere Karşı Klinisyenlerin/Öğrencilerin Tutumları (MICA 2) Ölçeği Türkçe versiyonun Türk tıp fakültesi öğrencileri için geçerli ve güvenilir bir ölçek olduğu belirlenmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Damgalama/stigma, tıp fakültesi öğrencisi, MICA 2, psikometrik özellikler, geçerlik, güvenilirlik

Kaynakça

• 1. Vos T, Lim SS, Abbafati C. Abbas KM, Abbasi M, Abbasifard M, et al. Global burden of 369 diseases and injuries in 204 countries and territories, 1990–2019: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019. Lancet 2020; 396 (10258): 1204-1222.
• 2. The WHO special initiative for mental health (2019-2023): universal health coverage for mental health. World Health Organization; 2019. Erişim: (https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/310981. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO).
• 3. Thornicroft G, Rose D, Kassam A, Sartorius N. Stigma: ignorance, prejudice or discrimination? BJPsych 2007; 190 (3): 192- 193.
• 4. Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma. Annu Rev Sociol 2001; 27: 363-385.
• 5. Morden NE, Mistler LA, Weeks WB, Bartels JS. Health care for patients with serious mental illness: Family medicine’s role. J Am Board Fam Med 2009; 22 (2): 187-195.
• 6. World Health Organization, Department of Mental Health, Substance Abuse, Mental Health Evidence Research Team. Mental Health Atlas; 2005.
• 7. McDaid D. Countering the stigmatisation and discrimination of people with mental health problems in Europe. Luxembourg, European Commission. 2008:1-20.
• 8. Kassam A, Glozier N, Leese M, Henderson C, Thornicroftve G. Development and responsiveness of a scale to measure clinicians’ attitudes to people with mental illness (medical student version). Acta Psychiatr Scand 2010; 122 (2): 153–161.
• 9. Duman B, Çolak B, Özdemir SN, Özkasap NS, Sabahi İS, Şahinoğlu MB, et al. Tıp eğitiminin ruhsal hastalıklara yönelik tutumlara etkisi. Türk Aile Hek Derg 2019; 23v(4): 141-149.
• 10. Köşger F, Altınöz A. A medical school students' mental disorders attitudes. Turkish J Clin Psyc 2019; 22 (1): 57-62.
• 11. Hankir A, Zaman R, Fong Lim M, Lever I, Brothwood P, Carrick F, et al. A King’s College London Undergraduate Psychiatry Society event to challenge the stigma attached to psychological problems in healthcare professionals and students. Psychiatr Danub 2017; 29 (suppl. 3): 457-463.
• 12. Foster A, Hilton S, Embry F, Pires C, Ahmed AO. Measuring attitudes towards people with mental illness and people who are homeless: is a joint instrument needed. Homelessness: Prevalence, Impact of Social Factors and Mental Health Challenges, Clark C (Ed), 4 Nova Science Publishers, Inc; 2014: 223-250.
• 13. Kassam A, Glozier N, Leese M, Loughran J, Thornicroft G. A controlled trial of mental illness related stigma training for medical students. BMC medical education 2011; 11 (1): 1-10.
• 14. Thornicroft G, Mehta N, Clement S, Evans-Lacko S, Doherty M, et al. Evidence for effective interventions to reduce mentalhealth-related stigma and discrimination. Lancet 2016; 387 (10023): 1123–32.
• 15. Corrigan PW, Morris SB, Michaels PJ, Rafacz JD, Rüsch N. Challenging the public stigma of mental illness: a meta analysis of out come studies. Psychiatr Serv. 2012; 63(10): 963–73. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ps.201100529.
• 16. Wechsler D, Schomerus G, Mahlke C, Bock T. Effects of contact-based, short-term anti-stigma training for medical students. Neuropsychiatr 2020; 34 (2): 66-73.
• 17. Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi El Kitabı. Ankara: Pegem A Yayıncılık; 2007.
• 18. Scherer KR. Criteria for Emotion-Antecedent Appraisal: A Review. Cognitive Perspectives on Emotion and Motivation Dordrecht, Hamilton V, Bower GH, Frijda NH (Ed), The Netherlands: Kluwer; 1988: 89-126.
• 19. Rencher AC. Methods of Multivariate Analysis, Second Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc.; 2002.
• 20. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications; 2015.
• 21. Özdamar K. Paket Programlar ve İstatistiksel Veri Analizi. Eskişehir: Kaan Kitabevi; 2002.
• 22. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ 2011; 2: 53-55.
• 23. Masedo A, Grandón P, Saldivia S, Vielma-Aguilera A, Castro-Alzate ES, Bustos C, et al. A multicentric study on stigma towards people with mental illness in health sciences students. BMC Med Educ 2021; 21 (1): 1-11.
• 24. Seera G, Arya S, Sethi S, Nimmawitt N, Ratta-apha W. Help-seeking behaviors for mental health problems in medical students: Studies in Thailand and India. Asian J Psychiatr 2020; 54: 102453.
• 25. Sastre‐Rus M, García‐Lorenzo A, Lluch‐Canut MT, Tomás-Sábado J, Zabaleta-Del-Olmo E. Instruments to assess mental health‐related stigma among health professionals and students in health sciences: A systematic psychometric review. J Adv Nurs 2019; 75 (9): 1838-1853.
• 26. Babicki M, Małecka M, Kowalski K, Bogudzińska B, Piotrowski P. Stigma Levels Toward Psychiatric Patients Among Medical Students - A Worldwide Online Survey Across 65 Countries. Front Psychiatry 2021; 12:798909.
• 27. Babicki M, Kowalski K, Bogudzińska B, Piotrowski P. The Assessment of Attitudes of Students at Medical Schools towards Psychiatry and Psychiatric Patients- A Cross-Sectional Online Survey. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021; 18: 4425.
• 28. Seera G, Nimmawitt N, Vanithpongphan S, Ratta-apha W. The Thai Version of Mental Illness: Clinicians’ Attitudes Scale (Medical student version) MICA-2. J Psychiatr Assoc Thailand. 2020; 65: 219-232.
• 29. Vendsborg P, Bratbo J, Dannevang A, Hagedorn-Møller J, Kistrup K, Lindhardt A, et al. Staff attitudes towards patients with schizophrenia. Dan Med J 2013; 60 (10): A4710.
• 30. Adelufosi AO, Abayomi O, Oyewole A, Ayankola A. Does Religiosity Influence Attitude to Mental Illness? – A survey of Medical students in a Nigerian University. J Behav Health 2013; 2 (2): 135-139.
• 31. Cerny BA, Kaiser HF. A study of a measure of sampling adequacy for factor-analytic correlation matrices. Multivar Behav Res 1977; 12 (1): 43-47.
• 32. Çokluk Ö, Şekercioğlu G, Büyüköztürk Ş. Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları. Ankara: PEGEM Akademi; 2010.
• 33. Meydan CH, Şeşen H. Yapısal Eşitlik Modellemesi AMOS Uygulamaları. Ankara: Detay Yayıncılık; 2011.
• 34. Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit, Testing structural equation models, In KA Bollen, JS Long (Ed), Newbury Park CA: Sage; 1993: 136-162.
• 35. Kline RB. Principle and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford; 2011.
• 36. Demirsöz M, Zeynep Ö, Yonar H ve ark. Structural determination of the relationship between trait anxiety and personal indecisiveness for undergraduates of the faculty of veterinary medicine: The case of Selçuk University. Vet Hekim Der Derg 2021; 92 (1): 60-75.