Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the staff attitude to coercion scale: an exploratory factor analysis

Author:

Venturini Paola,Bassi Giulia,Salcuni Silvia,Kotzalidis Georgios D.,Telesforo Carla Ludovica,Salustri Eleonora,Trevisi Manuela,Roselli Valentina,Tarsitani Lorenzo,Infante Vittorio,Niolu Cinzia,Polselli Gianmarco,Boldrini Tommaso

Abstract

AimsThe current study aimed to validate the Italian version of the Staff Attitude to Coercion Scale (SACS), which assesses mental health care staff’s attitudes to the use of coercion in treatment.MethodsThe original English version of the SACS was translated into Italian, according to the back-translation procedure. Subsequently, it was empirically validated by performing an exploratory factor analysis on a sample of 217 mental health professionals (Mean = 43.40 years, SD = 11.06) recruited form Italian general hospital (acute) psychiatric wards (GHPWs), with at least 1 year of work experience (i.e., inclusion criteria).ResultsResults confirmed the three-factor solution of the original version for the Italian version of the SACS, though three items loaded on different factors, compared to the original. The three extracted factors, explained 41% of total variance, and were labeled similarly to the original scale and according to their respective item content, i.e., Factor 1 “Coercion as offending” (items: 3, 13, 14, and 15), Factor 2 “Coercion as care and security” (items: 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, and 9), and Factor 3 “Coercion as treatment” (items: 6, 10, 11, and 12). The internal consistency of the three-factor model of the Italian version of the SACS was assessed through Cronbach’s α and yielded acceptable indexes, ranging from 0.64 to 0.77.ConclusionThe present findings suggest that the Italian version of the SACS is a valid and reliable tool that can be used to assess healthcare professionals’ attitudes toward coercion.

Publisher

Frontiers Media SA

Subject

Psychiatry and Mental health

Reference56 articles.

1. Psychiatric nurses’ thoughts and feelings about restraint use: a decision dilemma.;Marangos-Frost;J Adv Nurs.,2000

2. Influence and coercion: relational and rights-based ethical approaches to forced psychiatric treatment.;Olsen;J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs.,2003

3. Ethical challenges when using coercion in mental healthcare: a systematic literature review.;Hem;Nurs Ethics.,2018

4. Psychiatric restraint and seclusion: resisting legislative solution.;Tovino;Santa Clara Law Rev.,2007

5. Restraint and seclusion in psychiatric treatment settings: regulation, case law, and risk management.;Recupero;J Am Acad Psychiatry Law.,2011

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3