Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32780773›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Factorial validity of the Twi versions of five measures of mental health and well-being in Ghana.

Richard Appiah, Lusilda Schutte, Angelina Wilson Fadiji, Marié P Wissing, Amanda Cromhout

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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.

Richard AppiahAfrica Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.ORCID 0000-0002-1462-5015
Lusilda SchutteAfrica Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
Angelina Wilson FadijiAfrica Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
Marié P WissingAfrica Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.
Amanda CromhoutAfrica Unit for Transdisciplinary Health Research, Faculty of Health Sciences, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMental health is considered an integral part of human health. Reliable and valid measurement instruments are needed to assess various facets of mental health in the native language of the people involved. This paper reports on five studies examining evidence for the factorial validity of the Twi versions of five mental health and well-being measurement instruments: Affectometer-2 (AFM-2); Automatic Thought Questionnaire-Positive (ATQ-P); Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale (GSEs); Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9); and Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) in a rural Ghanaian adult sample.

methodMeasures were translated and evaluated using a research-committee approach, pilot-tested, and administered to adults (N = 444) randomly selected from four rural poor communities in Ghana. We applied confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), bifactor CFA, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and bifactor ESEM to the AFM-2, ATQ-P, and the PHQ-9, and CFA to the GSEs and the SWLS. The omega coefficient of composite reliability was computed for each measure.

resultsA two-factor bifactor ESEM model displayed superior model fit for the AFM-2. The total scale and the Negative Affect subscale, but not the Positive Affect subscale, attained sufficient reliability. Two models (a four-factor 22-item bifactor ESEM model and a 5-factor 22-item ESEM model) fitted the data best for the ATQ-P. The bifactor ESEM model displayed a high reliability value for the total scale and satisfactory reliability values for three of its four subscales. For the GSEs, a one-factor CFA model (residuals of items 4 and 5 correlated) demonstrated superior model fit with a high reliability score for the total scale. A two-factor ESEM model outperformed all other models fitted for the PHQ-9, with moderate and satisfactory reliability scores for the subscales. A one-factor CFA model (residuals of item 4 and 5 correlated) demonstrated superior model fit for the SWLS, with a satisfactory reliability value for the total scale.

conclusionsFindings established evidence for the factorial validity of the Twi versions of all five measures, with the global scores, but not all subscale scores, demonstrating satisfactory reliability. These validated measurement instruments can be used to assess mental health and well-being in the research and practice contexts of the current sample.

Indexed as

LanguageMental HealthPsychometricsTranslatingAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleGhanaHumansMaleMiddle AgedSelf EfficacySurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID32780773
PMCPMC7418998

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.