ArticleJournal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD2026
Measuring dementia-related stigma in the Dutch general public: Translation and validation of the dementia public stigma scale.
Article in Journal of Alzheimer's disease : JAD, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BackgroundPeople with Alzheimer's disease or other types of dementia may experience stigma, which can influence their quality of life. Valid measurement instruments of public dementia-related stigma are lacking.ObjectiveWe aimed to translate and validate the 16-item Dementia Public Stigma Scale (DePSS) in Dutch.MethodsA survey was conducted among a nationally representative sample of the Dutch population (n = 524). A subset (n = 145) completed the DePSS again after one month. Following validation guidelines, floor and ceiling effects, structural validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability were assessed. We used open-ended questions to investigate content validity. The responses provided insights into respondents' perceptions of dementia and their interactions with people with dementia.ResultsForward-backward translation required minor adaptations. No floor or ceiling effects were observed. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated an acceptable fit (CFI = 0.988, RMSEA = 0.073, SRMR = 0.065). Internal consistency (α = 0.82, ω = 0.79) and test-retest reliability (ICC = 0.82, 95%CI 0.76-0.89) were good, with no significant differences between test and retest scores (t(144) = 0.135, p = .893). Responses to open-ended questions were largely clustered under DePSS items, indicating good content validity. Additional themes were disconnection from present reality; feeling pity for people with dementia; and manifestations of negative emotions.ConclusionsThe Dutch DePSS demonstrated good psychometric properties. Together with other versions, these findings enhance the generalizability of the DePSS across diverse populations. Further validation and application of the DePSS will help deepen our understanding of dementia-related stigma and may also inform stigma reduction interventions.
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.