Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25522127›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Psychometric evaluation of the HIV stigma scale in a Swedish context.

Maria H Lindberg, Lena Wettergren, Maria Wiklander, Veronica Svedhem-Johansson, Lars E Eriksson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychometric Properties of the Berger HIV Stigma Scale: A Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Sense of Grip on Disease Among Persons Living with HIV: Insights from a Mixed-method Study in a Tertiary Care Hospital of Kolkata, India.Indian journal of community medicine : official publication of Indian Association of Preventive & Social Medicine · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Maria H LindbergDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Lena WettergrenDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden.
Maria WiklanderDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden; Department of Clinical Sciences, Danderyd Hospital, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Veronica Svedhem-JohanssonDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden; Unit of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine Huddinge, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lars E ErikssonDepartment of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden; Department of Infectious Diseases, Karolinska University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden; School of Health Sciences, City University London, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHIV-related stigma has negative consequences for infected people's lives and is a barrier to HIV prevention. Therefore valid and reliable instruments to measure stigma are needed to enable mapping of HIV stigma. This study aimed to evaluate the psychometric properties of the HIV stigma scale in a Swedish context with regard to construct validity, data quality, and reliability.

methodsThe HIV stigma scale, developed by Berger, Ferrans, and Lashley (2001), was distributed to a cross-sectional sample of people living with HIV in Sweden (n = 194). The psychometric evaluation included exploratory factor analysis together with an analysis of the distribution of scores, convergent validity by correlations between the HIV stigma scale and measures of emotional well-being, and an analysis of missing items and floor and ceiling effects. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's α.

resultsThe exploratory factor analysis suggested a four-factor solution, similar to the original scale, with the dimensions personalised stigma, disclosure concerns, negative self-image, and concerns with public attitudes. One item had unacceptably low loadings and was excluded. Correlations between stigma dimensions and emotional well-being were all in the expected direction and ranged between -0.494 and -0.210. The instrument generated data of acceptable quality except for participants who had not disclosed their HIV status to anybody. In line with the original scale, all subscales demonstrated acceptable internal consistency with Cronbach's α 0.87-0.96.

conclusionA 39-item version of the HIV stigma scale used in a Swedish context showed satisfactory construct validity and reliability. Response alternatives are suggested to be slightly revised for items assuming the disclosure of diagnosis to another person. We recommend that people that have not disclosed should skip all questions belonging to the dimension personalised stigma. Our analysis confirmed construct validity of the instrument even without this dimension.

Indexed as

Social StigmaAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCultural CharacteristicsFemaleHIV InfectionsHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychometricsSweden

Identifiers

PMID25522127
PMCPMC4270782

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.