ArticleBMC psychology2026
Attitudes towards people with mental disorders: results of a psychometric evaluation and confirmatory factor analysis of the stigma towards people with mental disorders (SToP-MD) scale.
Article in BMC psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Stigmatizing attitudes toward individuals with mental disorders represent a major barrier to treatment, recovery, and social inclusion. The present research introduces and psychometrically evaluates the German-language Stigma Toward People with Mental Disorders scale (SToP-MD) across three independent studies with distinct samples.In study 1 (N = 266), an initial item pool was developed and refined based on theoretical frameworks and exploratory factor analysis. In study 2 (N = 448), confirmatory factor analysis supported a two-factor structure comprising prejudiced stigmatization (SToP-MD-PS) and assumption of problems (SToP-MD-AP). The model demonstrated adequate fit according to conventional indices (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.96, SRMR = 0.07), although robust indices indicated only moderate fit (robust CFI = 0.91, robust RMSEA = 0.13). Internal consistency was good for the PS subscale (ω = 0.83) but limited for the AP subscale (ω = 0.51). In study 3 (N = 266), the scale's sensitivity to short-term change was examined following exposure to differently framed media content.As hypothesized, the SToP-MD subscales were positively associated with depression stigma (DSS) and social distance (SDI), and negatively correlated with openness and agreeableness (NEO-FFI), supporting convergent validity. Discriminant validity was partially confirmed by low or non-significant correlations with attitudes toward physically disabled individuals (ATDP), suicide-related cognitions (CCSS), and socially desirable responding (BIDR).Across all three studies, the SToP-MD demonstrated preliminary yet consistent evidence of structural and construct validity, as well as change sensitivity. It captures both overt prejudices and implicit burden assumptions, offering a nuanced assessment of public stigma toward mental disorders. The scale can serve as a valuable tool in stigma research, public health monitoring, and evaluation of interventions. Future research should extend validation to more diverse samples and test predictive and longitudinal utility.
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.