ArticleBMC psychology2026
Dimensionality, cross-validation and reliability of Help-Seeking Dilemma Scale.
Article in BMC psychology, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHelp-seeking dilemmas are potential barriers to use of treatment, social interventions, and social support systems. While previously existing scales provided a means of assessing help-seeking intentions, a fundamental gap is their limitation to mental health cases or gender lines. Hence, Help-Seeking Dilemma Scale (HSDS) was developed for assessing help-seeking dilemmas regardless of mental health conditions or gender lines.
methodsThe study adopted cross-validation design with 660 participants across three samples. First sample comprised 15 participants (males = 7, females = 8) in an in-depth interview that facilitated the generation of HSDS items. Second sample comprised 446 participants (male = 49.6%, female = 50.0%, unspecified gender = .4%, mean age = 29 ± 11.31 years) randomly split into EFA (n = 227) and CFA (n = 219) subsamples. HSDS was cross-validated with Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) in the EFA subsample and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) in the CFA subsample. Third sample comprised 199 participants (male = 85%, female = 11.5%, unspecified gender = 3.5%, mean age = 31.29 ± 6.55 years) where predictive validity was tested. Data were collected using HSDS, General Help Seeking Questionnaire (GHSQ), Self-stigma of Seeking Help Scale (SSOSH) and Actual Help-Seeking Questionnaire.
resultsEFA revealed sampling adequacy and data appropriateness for factorization [KMO = .910, χ
conclusionHSDS is valid and reliable for assessing help-seeking dilemmas in academic and general populations and without limitation to any gender.
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.