ArticleComprehensive psychiatry2024
Evaluation of the psychometric properties of the UBACC questionnaire in a multi-country psychiatric study in Africa.
Article in Comprehensive psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Consenting practices to enhance comprehension in research involving individuals with schizophrenia and bipolar affective disorder in Uganda: a qualitative inquiry.BMC psychology · 2026Article
- NeuroDev: etiology and experience of neurodevelopmental disorders in Kenya and South Africa.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Six-month readmission and associated factors among psychiatry patients at Moi Teaching and Referral Hospital, Western Kenya.BMC psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe University of California, San Diego Brief Assessment of Capacity to Consent (UBACC) is a tool to assess the capacity of participants to consent in psychiatric research. However, little is known about the psychometric properties in low and middle-income countries. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of the UBACC.
methodsWe examined the reliability, latent factor structure, and item response of the first attempt of the UBACC items in a sample of 32,208 adults (16,467 individuals with psychosis and 15,741 controls) in Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, and Uganda; exploring these properties in the full sample and stratified by country, diagnostic status, sex, and ethnolinguistic language groups.
resultsExploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggested a two-factor model for the overall sample. However, a three-factor model was more appropriate when examining the latent structure across country, language, and sex. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) revealed an adequately fitting three-factor model for the full sample and across country, sex, and language. A two-factor model, however, was more appropriate for English and Amharic languages. Across all groups, the internal consistency of the UBACC was low, indicating below-threshold reliability (Cronbach's α (95 % CI = 0.58 (0.57-0.59). Using a multidimensional item-response theory framework for the full sample revealed that UBACC item 8, measuring understanding of the benefits of study participation, was the most discriminating item. Many of the other items had below-threshold discriminating characteristics.
conclusionEFA and CFA converged towards a two and three-dimensional structure for the UBACC, in line with the developers of the original scale. The differences in properties between populations and language groups, low internal consistency, and below-threshold item functioning suggest that investigations into the cultural and linguistic nuances are still warranted. Understanding the utility of consent tools, such as the UBACC, in underrepresented populations will be a part of the larger process which ensures that research participants are adequately protected.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.