Measuring stigma in people with HIV: Psychometric assessment of the HIV stigma scale¶

TLDR

The authors developed an instrument to measure stigma perceived by people with HIV, grounded in existing stigma and psychosocial literature. After two rounds of content review, items were compiled into a booklet and distributed via HIV‑related organizations in the United States, and psychometric analysis was conducted on 318 returned questionnaires. Exploratory factor analysis yielded four factors—personalized stigma, disclosure concerns, negative self‑image, and concern with public attitudes—supporting a single higher‑order construct; strong internal consistency (α .90–.93 for subscales, .96 overall) and construct validity with self‑esteem, depression, social support, and conflict confirmed the scale’s reliability and validity in a large, diverse sample. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Res Nurs Health 24:518–529.

Abstract

Abstract An instrument to measure the stigma perceived by people with HIV was developed based on the literature on stigma and psychosocial aspects of having HIV. Items surviving two rounds of content review were assembled in a booklet and distributed through HIV‐related organizations across the United States. Psychometric analysis was performed on 318 questionnaires returned by people with HIV (19% women, 21% African American, 8% Hispanic). Four factors emerged from exploratory factor analysis: personalized stigma, disclosure concerns, negative self‐image, and concern with public attitudes toward people with HIV. Extraction of one higher‐order factor provided evidence of a single overall construct. Construct validity also was supported by relationships with related constructs: self‐esteem, depression, social support, and social conflict. Coefficient alphas between .90 and .93 for the subscales and .96 for the 40‐item instrument provided evidence of internal consistency reliability. The HIV Stigma Scale was reliable and valid with a large, diverse sample of people with HIV. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Res Nurs Health 24:518–529, 2001