ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Psychometric evaluation of the professional forensic stigma scale.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Professional stigma toward forensic mental healthcare service users may compromise care quality and negatively affect treatment and rehabilitation outcomes. Reliable role- and context-specific instruments are needed to assess professional stigma in settings where therapeutic and security responsibilities intersect. This study examined the psychometric properties of the newly developed PROfessional Forensic Stigma (PROFS) scale, a multidimensional measure assessing stereotypes, prejudices, and discriminatory behaviors among professionals working with forensic populations. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 219 mental healthcare professionals from forensic and community services in Spain (n = 79), Belgium (n = 83), and the Netherlands (n = 57) completed the initial PROFS (36 items; 7-point Likert scale), and measures of negative stereotypes (ATMIO), affective reactions (APDQ), social distance (SDS), empathy (IRI), and social desirability (BIDR-16). Psychometric evaluation used classical test theory and Rasch analysis (Partial Credit Model). Item functioning, dimensionality, reliability, and construct validity were assessed. Convergent and divergent validity were examined using Spearman correlation coefficients. Results: The initial PROFS demonstrated a three-domain structure (Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination). Rasch-based item refinement and correction of disordered response thresholds resulted in a final 30-item version with a 5-point response format. The refined PROFS showed acceptable to good reliability (total scale PSI = 0.86-0.90; subscale PSI = 0.67-0.84). Convergent validity was supported by moderate to strong correlations between Stereotypes and negative stereotypes (ρ = 0.58), Prejudice and affective reactions (ρ = 0.40-0.55), and Discrimination and social distance (ρ = 0.36; all p < 0.01). Weak associations with empathy and social desirability supported divergent validity. Floor effects were observed for Discrimination items. Conclusions: The PROFS shows satisfactory psychometric performance and provides evidence for its reliability and construct validity as a measure of professional stigma among mental health care professionals working with forensic service users. The scale may support research and evaluation of stigma-related outcomes and can be used to identify professional stigma in teams or services and to inform the development and evaluation of stigma-reduction initiatives, with the ultimate aim of improving care and rehabilitation prospects for forensic service users.
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.