↓ Skip to main content

Psychometric properties of the positive mental health instrument among people with mental disorders: a cross-sectional study

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (54th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 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
Psychometric properties of the positive mental health instrument among people with mental disorders: a cross-sectional study
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0424-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Janhavi Ajit Vaingankar, Edimansyah Abdin, Siow Ann Chong, Rajeswari Sambasivam, Anitha Jeyagurunathan, Esmond Seow, Louisa Picco, Shirlene Pang, Susan Lim, Mythily Subramaniam

Abstract

The Positive Mental Health (PMH) instrument was developed and validated to assess the level of PMH and its six dimensions in a multi-ethnic general population sample. This cross-sectional study examines the psychometric properties of the instrument for assessing the level of PMH among help-seeking patients with mental disorders. The PMH instrument was tested among 360 out-patients with schizophrenia, depression or anxiety spectrum disorders, seeking treatment at a tertiary psychiatric hospital and its affiliated clinics in Singapore. All participants completed the PMH instrument along with measures of life satisfaction, mental and overall health and happiness. Reliability (internal consistency), construct (Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM)) and criterion (convergent and divergent) validity of the PMH instrument were tested in this population. Items were also tested for item response theory and differential item functioning (IRT-DIF). ESEM on the PMH instrument showed good fit with the model reflecting six factors (general coping, personal growth and autonomy, spirituality, interpersonal skills, emotional support, and global affect). Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha >0.85) for the instrument and its six subscales. The PMH instrument fulfilled expected correlations with related constructs and demonstrated adequate item discrimination and difficulty estimates; however, significant DIF was noted for few items for age, gender and ethnicity groups. The PMH instrument is a reliable and valid instrument for measuring PMH dimensions in patients with mental disorders. Further studies in larger samples are needed to assess the impact of DIF on PMH scores. The implications for the shift in focus from just the negative aspects of mental disorders to including positive components in the assessment of patients with mental disorders are immense, and can be applied in routine mental health practice and policy making.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 1 1%
Unknown 91 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 17%
Student > Master 10 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 8 9%
Researcher 6 7%
Other 18 20%
Unknown 26 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 27%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 10%
Social Sciences 7 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Other 11 12%
Unknown 29 32%

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 13 February 2016.
All research outputs
#3,627,205
of 7,187,728 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#376
of 823 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#169,230
of 320,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#15
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,187,728 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 823 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 2.3. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 320,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.