↓ Skip to main content

Exploring the factor structure of the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scale (HoNOS) in a sample of patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exploring the factor structure of the Health of the Nation Outcomes Scale (HoNOS) in a sample of patients with schizophrenia, schizotypal and delusional disorders
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, July 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12955-017-0701-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wayne Smith, Silia Vitoratou, Paul McCrone, Anita Patel

Abstract

The Health of the Nation Outcomes Scale (HoNOS) is recommended for use by the English National Service Framework for Mental Health and by the working group on outcome indicators for severe mental illnesses to the Department of Health. It was developed to measure the health and social functioning of people with severe mental illness. Since the development of the HoNOS many have debated its latent structure. This paper examines the latent structure of the HoNOS using current factor analysis techniques. HoNOS data for 12,910 patients with ICD10 diagnoses F20 to F29 at a UK National Health Service Mental Health Trust were analysed using exploratory, confirmatory and bifactor analysis for categorical data. The fit of models was assessed using relative and absolute fit indices. Exploratory followed by confirmatory factor analysis identified a four factor solution which fit the data better than existing models. The corresponding bifactor factor solution identified three robust factors and one weak factor after accounting for a general factor. The factor loadings on the general factor were not appreciably different when compared to a unidimensional factor solution indicating the existence of a common trait. Existing models proposed in the literature did not fit well in our data. Factor analysis identified a new four factor solution. These factors showed clinical relevance according to published literature. The bifactor model demonstrated that there is not much loss of information when the HoNOS is used as a unidimensional construct. Further studies should explore this structure in larger samples and in alternative sample populations. A bifactor approach may have implications for how the HoNOS is used in practice, since there is ongoing debate on whether HoNOS item scores should be aggregated for interpretation.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 7 16%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Master 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 9%
Other 7 16%
Unknown 8 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 36%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 5%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 July 2017.
All research outputs
#15,469,838
of 22,988,380 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,353
of 2,185 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#196,716
of 312,506 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#34
of 57 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,988,380 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,185 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,506 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 57 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.