2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2011.05739.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Is the Community Attitudes towards the Mentally Ill scale valid for use in the investigation of European nurses’ attitudes towards the mentally ill? A confirmatory factor analytic approach

Abstract: Further research is recommended to develop a valid and reliable research tool to specifically measure the attitudes of 'nurses' working across different mental healthcare facilities towards this vulnerable patient group.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
32
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 40 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
(76 reference statements)
0
32
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It has been widely used in research in different populations (Morris et al, 2012). The CAMI consists of four subscales, two of which measure stigma [called “Authoritarianism” (CAMI-A) and “Benevolence” (CAMI-B)], one measuring fear of the mentally ill [called “Social Restrictiveness, SR” (CAMI-SR)], and one measuring acceptance of the mentally ill in the community [called “Community Mental Health Ideology, CMHI” (CAMI-CMHI)].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It has been widely used in research in different populations (Morris et al, 2012). The CAMI consists of four subscales, two of which measure stigma [called “Authoritarianism” (CAMI-A) and “Benevolence” (CAMI-B)], one measuring fear of the mentally ill [called “Social Restrictiveness, SR” (CAMI-SR)], and one measuring acceptance of the mentally ill in the community [called “Community Mental Health Ideology, CMHI” (CAMI-CMHI)].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…By conducting analyses based on a factor structure that was initially hypothesised (e.g., Taylor & Dear, 1981) but not supported (e.g., Högberg et al, 2008;Morris et al, 2012), meaningful changes in attitudes may not be clearly reflected by patterns of change in the factor scores. In other words, if the factor structure of a measure is not sound and replicable, stigma reduction interventions may not be able to demonstrate changes in dimensions of attitudes, even if they exist.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many studies use the Community Attitudes toward the Mentally Ill scale (CAMI: Taylor & Dear, 1981), whose four-factor structure has not been reliably replicated across samples (Brockington, Hall, Levings, & Murphy, 1993;Högberg, Magnusson, Ewertzon, & Lützén, 2008;Morris et al, 2012;Sevigny et al, 1999;Wolff, Pathare, Craig, & Leff, 1996). Many scale developers in the area overlook issues of construct validity such as convergent and discriminant validity (see Cronbach & Meehl, 1955), which are key to the development of new measures (e.g., Aromaa, Tolvanen, Tuulari, & Wahlbeck, 2010;Luty, Fekadu, Umoh, & Gallagher, 2006;Svensson et al, 2011).…”
mentioning
confidence: 97%
“…The third section contained the Swedish version of the Community Attitudes towards Mental Illness (CAMI) instrument (Hogberg and colleagues (2008). The original CAMI and LOC have been used extensively since and has shown high validity and reliability (Morris et al, 2011;Ukpong & Abasiubong, 2010;Barke et al, 2011).The self-report questionnaire was not translated into French as long as English is the teaching medium in high learning institutions in Rwanda.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%