Psychometric Properties of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale Form C in a Non-Western Culture

Abstract

Form C of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scales (MHLC-C) was designed to investigate health-related control beliefs of persons with an existing medical condition. The aim of the present study was to examine the psychometric properties of this instrument in a culture characterized by external control beliefs and learned helplessness—contrary to the societal context of original test development. Altogether, 374 Hungarian patients with cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, diabetes, and cardiovascular and musculoskeletal disorders were enrolled in the study. Besides the MHLC-C, instruments measuring general control beliefs, anxiety, depression, self-efficacy, and health behaviors were also administered to evaluate the validity of the scale. Both exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic techniques were used to investigate the factor structure of the scale. Our results showed that the Hungarian adaptation of the instrument had a slightly different structure than the one originally hypothesized: in the present sample, a three-factor structure emerged where the items of the Doctors and the Others subscales loaded onto a single common component. Internal reliability of all three subscales was adequate (alphas between .71 and .79). Data concerning the instrument's validity were comparable with previous results from Western countries. These findings may suggest that health locus of control can be construed very similarly to Western countries even in a post-communist society—regardless of the potential differences in general control beliefs.

Listening to the voices of the general public in India on biomedical research – an exploratory study

“…The concepts of "health literacy" and "health-related locus of control" seem to be relevant when attempting to understand the empowerment of human participants in research (27,28). This needs to be explored further in the context of healthrelated decision-making and research participation among the three categories of people that emerged from this study.…”

Locus of control and pain: Validity of the Form C of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scales when used with adolescents

“…We used the maximum likelihood (ML) as a factor extraction method and to consider that a model had at least an acceptable fit, we determined that the comparative fit index (CFI) value should be 0.90 or greater, that the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value should be 0.08 or lower, and that the standardized root mean residual (SRMR) should be less than 0.10 (Schweizer, 2010). The models tested were (1) the original four-factor model proposed by Wallston et al (1994), which has been supported by a number of studies (De Las Cuevas et al, 2015; Lundgren et al, 2007; Pereira et al, 2011; Ubbiali et al, 2008), and (2) a three-factor model where items from the Doctors and Other People scales are included in the same scale (Jomeen and Martin, 2005; Konkolÿ Thege et al, 2014).…”

“…However, the findings regarding the factor structure of the MHLC-C scales are not consistent. For example, at least two studies with adults have supported a three-factor solution in samples of adult patients with conditions such as cancer, irritable bowel syndrome, or diabetes (Jomeen and Martin, 2005; Konkolÿ Thege et al, 2014). In addition, Ip and Martin (2006) found in a sample of pregnant women that neither the four- or three-factor solution could be supported.…”

Locus of control among individuals with different pain conditions

“…Previous studies have shown that Chance HLC is usually associated with worse indicators of health or disease, while an internal locus of control is associated with positive indicators of health and disease. 3,7,12,13,15,17,18,34,35,36 Thus, dental patients with these profiles are more likely to accept medical or dental approaches and advice, 6 and this correlation may be used strategically by health professionals. Though the results are promising, those involving the "pure internal," "pure powerful others," and "yea-sayer" profiles require a closer scrutiny.…”