ArticleAIDS and behavior2026
Examining the Psychometric Properties of a Revised 40-Item Berger HIV Stigma Scale.
Article in AIDS and behavior, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Over the past decades, as social contexts and knowledge about HIV have evolved, the conceptualization and understanding of HIV stigma, as well as the measures used to assess it, may have also shifted. This study aimed to examine the psychometric properties of a revised version of the Berger scale which updated language to better capture HIV stigma in the Southern U.S. The revisions were informed by focus group discussions with people with HIV (PWH) in Florida. Following three focus groups, the updated scale was tested among 461 PWH. The internal structure was evaluated using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The EFA analysis supported a four-factor structure. These four latent factors corresponded to the original dimensions of the Berger scale. All evaluated models demonstrated good model fit indices. The revised scale also showed high reliability, with composite reliability (omega) values for each subscale exceeding 0.89. Measurement invariance testing across race and gender groups further indicated that invariance was upheld. The revised scale also demonstrated high reliability, and composite reliability omega for each sub-scale was over 0.89. We further conducted measurement invariance across race and gender groups, and the measurement invariance was hold. We found that the revised scale is highly reliable, encouraging wider testing of this scale in a variety of populations.
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.