ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Developing a comprehensive scale for measuring explanatory models of mental disorders among Japanese adults.
Article in Frontiers in 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Individuals differ in their understanding of the causes of illnesses or problems and the appropriate methods for addressing them. Mental disorders can be interpreted from multiple perspectives shaped by cultural backgrounds and personal experiences. The conceptual framework through which individuals recognize and interpret illnesses or problems is referred to as an explanatory model. This study aimed to develop the Explanatory Model Scale for Mental Disorders (EMS-MD), based on Haslam's (2003) explanatory styles-"Medicalizing," "Moralizing," and "Psychologizing"-with the addition of "Socializing" and "Spiritualizing," and to examine its reliability and validity among Japanese adults. Methods: An online survey was administered to 928 Japanese adults aged 18 years and older using five mental disorder vignettes (depression, schizophrenia, alcohol use disorder, anorexia nervosa, and social anxiety disorder). A split-sample approach was used to conduct exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent and discriminant validity, and measurement invariance across gender and vignette contexts were also examined. Results: The analyses suggested a 24-item, 6-factor structure comprising "Socializing," "Spiritualizing," "Biologizing," "Medicalizing," "Moralizing," and "Psychologizing." Notably, "Biologizing" and "Medicalizing" emerged as distinct factors, although this distinction was exploratory because both had originally been conceptualized as part of a broader "Medicalizing" category. Most subscales demonstrated adequate internal consistency, and all exhibited good test-retest reliability. However, "Psychologizing" showed low internal consistency, indicating that this subscale should be interpreted cautiously and requires further item refinement of its item pool. Correlations with measures of the Attribution of Responsibility Process and the Japanese Health Locus of Control subscales were generally consistent with predictions, providing preliminary evidence for convergent validity. The Fornell-Larcker criterion provided preliminary evidence for discriminant validity. Multigroup analyses indicated that the measurement structure was generally stable across gender; however, measurement invariance across vignette contexts was limited. Discussion: Overall, the EMS-MD shows promise as a preliminary measure of explanatory styles for mental disorders among Japanese adults. Nevertheless, limitations related to model fit, the internal consistency of "Psychologizing," and measurement equivalence across vignettes highlight the need for further item refinement and validation in other cultural contexts.
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.