Differential item functioning for items in Berger’s HIV Stigma Scale: an analysis of cohorts from the Indian, Swedish, and US contexts

Abstract

PurposeTo examine whether items in Berger’s HIV Stigma Scale function differently with persons of different age, gender, and cultural backgrounds.MethodsSecondary data from cohorts, collected in South India (n = 250), Sweden (n = 193), and the US (n = 603) were reanalyzed to evaluate DIF within, between, and across these cohorts. All participants had answered the revised version of the HIV stigma scale consisting of 32 items forming the subscales Personalized stigma, Disclosure concerns, Concerns about public attitudes, and Negative self-image. Differential Item Functioning (DIF) for these items was assessed using hybrid ordinal regression-IRT technique. When DIF was detected, the cumulative impact of DIF on individual subscale scores was evaluated.ResultsDIF was detected for 9 items within, between, or across cohorts, but the DIF was negligible in general. Detected DIF between the Swedish and Indian cohorts had a cumulative salient impact on individual scores for the subscale Disclosure Concerns; Disclosure concerns were overestimated in the Swedish cohort and both over- and underestimated in the Indian cohort.ConclusionsThe items in the 32-item version of the HIV stigma scale did not seem to be particularly prone to present DIF. The DIF between the Indian and Swedish cohort for items in the subscale Disclosure Concerns could, however, result in both type I and type II errors if scores should be compared between the Indian and Swedish cohort.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-018-1841-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Measurement Invariance and Psychometric Analysis of Oxford Happiness Inventory Scale across Gender and Marital Status

“…Comparison of models 1 and 2 is used to assess nonuniform DIF. Uniform DIF also exist when models 2 and 3 differ significantly [11,15,24,25].…”

Adaptation and validation of a culturally adapted HIV stigma scale in Myanmar

“…Most of the stigma scales used in recent studies in Myanmar were widely used in Western countries [ 17 , 18 ], and only one scale, which we developed, was adapted from an Indian HIV stigma scale [ 19 ]. However, efforts to reduce HIV-related stigma have not yet matched the magnitude of the problem [ 20 ]. The clear lack of evidence on how to reduce the stigma of PLWHA in Myanmar might be because of the lack of valid tools to evaluate HIV stigma [ 1 ].…”

“…Stigma is related to a specific context of culture and power [ 7 , 20 ]. Take disclosure concerns for example, compared to Swedish PLWHA [ 27 ], Indian families are far more involved in the care of their members in the Indian society; this makes it more difficult to keep the HIV serostatus information within the family [ 20 ]. The stigma that may result from this is influenced by cultural differences.…”

Development of an 18‐item abbreviated Chinese version of Berger's HIV Stigma Scale

“…Thus, the authors translated Berger's HSS into Chinese and established its validity and reliability. Berger's HSS has been abridged (Bunn, Solomon, Miller, & Forehand, ; Kipp et al, ; Reinius et al, ; Wright, Sylvie, Lam, Templin, & Frey, ) and translated into three languages: Spanish (Franke et al, ), Tamil (Jeyaseelan et al, ), and Swedish (Lindberg, Wettergren, Wiklander, Svedhem‐Johansson, & Eriksson, ; Reinius et al, ; Wiklander et al, ). The above studies showed that abridgement of Berger's HSS reduced the scale to 3 to 4 domains and 8 to 40 items with good internal consistency ( α = 0.81‐0.96).…”

“…A review of literature found seven instruments that directly measure stigma toward people living with HIV: the Stigma and Social Impact Scale (Fife & Wright, 2000), the HIV Stigma Scale (Berger, Ferrans, & Lashley, 2001), the HIV Stigma Scale (Emlet, 2005), the HIV/AIDS Stigma Instrument (Holzemer, Uys, Chirwa, et al, 2007), the Internalized HIV Stigma Scale (Sayles et al, 2008), the TB and perceived stigma, which encompasses four domains: personalized stigma, disclosure concern, negative self-image, and concerns with public attitudes. Berger's HSS is commonly used to measure HIV-related stigma with its contents covering all stigma mechanisms affecting people living with HIV (Earnshaw & Chaudoir, 2009 Wright, Sylvie, Lam, Templin, & Frey, 2007) and translated into three languages: Spanish (Franke et al, 2010), Tamil (Jeyaseelan et al, 2013), and Swedish (Lindberg, Wettergren, Wiklander, Svedhem-Johansson, & Eriksson, 2014;Reinius et al, 2018;Wiklander et al, 2013). The above studies showed that abridgement of Berger's HSS reduced the scale to 3 to 4 domains and 8 to 40 items with good internal consistency (α = 0.81-0.96).…”