Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale

Abstract Background Suicide is a public health concern, with an estimated 1 million individuals dying each year worldwide. Individual psychological pain is believed to be a contributing motivating factor. Therefore, establishing a psychometrically sound tool to adequately measure psychological pain...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Madeline P. Casanova, Megan C. Nelson, Michael A. Pickering, Karen M. Appleby, Emma J. Grindley, Lindsay W. Larkins, Russell T. Baker
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-05-01
Series:Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8
id doaj-16760e0c1d6a4738bae8a879c610b634
record_format Article
spelling doaj-16760e0c1d6a4738bae8a879c610b6342021-05-23T11:17:24ZengBMCMeasurement Instruments for the Social Sciences2523-89302021-05-013111710.1186/s42409-021-00025-8Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain ScaleMadeline P. Casanova0Megan C. Nelson1Michael A. Pickering2Karen M. Appleby3Emma J. Grindley4Lindsay W. Larkins5Russell T. Baker6Medical Education, University of IdahoMedical Education, University of IdahoUniversity of IdahoIdaho State UniversityUniversity of IdahoUniversity of IdahoMedical Education, University of IdahoAbstract Background Suicide is a public health concern, with an estimated 1 million individuals dying each year worldwide. Individual psychological pain is believed to be a contributing motivating factor. Therefore, establishing a psychometrically sound tool to adequately measure psychological pain is important. The Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale (OMMP) has been proposed; however, previous psychometric analysis on the OMMP has not yielded a consistent scale structure, and the internal consistency of the subscales has not met recommended values. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the OMMP in a diverse sample. Methods A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 9-factor, 44-item OMMP was conducted on the full sample (n = 1151). Because model fit indices were not met, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random subset of the data (n = 576) to identify a more parsimonious structure. The EFA structure was then tested in a covariance model in the remaining subset of participants (n = 575). Multigroup invariance testing was subsequently performed to examine psychometric properties of the refined scale. Results The CFA of the original 9-factor, 44-item OMMP did not meet recommended model fit recommendations. The EFA analysis results revealed a 3-factor, 9-item scale (i.e., OMMP-9). The covariance model of the OMMP-9 indicated further refinement was necessary. Multigroup invariance testing conducted on the final 3-factor, 8-item scale (i.e., OMMP-8) across mental health diagnoses, sex, injury status, age, activity level, and athlete classification met all criteria for invariance. Conclusions The 9-factor, 44-item OMMP does not meet recommended measurement criteria and should not be recommended for use in research and clinical practice in its current form. The refined OMMP-8 may be a more viable option to use; however, more research should be completed prior to adoption.https://doi.org/10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8Psychological painPsychometricsConfirmatory factor analysisInvariance testing
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Madeline P. Casanova
Megan C. Nelson
Michael A. Pickering
Karen M. Appleby
Emma J. Grindley
Lindsay W. Larkins
Russell T. Baker
spellingShingle Madeline P. Casanova
Megan C. Nelson
Michael A. Pickering
Karen M. Appleby
Emma J. Grindley
Lindsay W. Larkins
Russell T. Baker
Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences
Psychological pain
Psychometrics
Confirmatory factor analysis
Invariance testing
author_facet Madeline P. Casanova
Megan C. Nelson
Michael A. Pickering
Karen M. Appleby
Emma J. Grindley
Lindsay W. Larkins
Russell T. Baker
author_sort Madeline P. Casanova
title Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
title_short Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
title_full Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
title_fullStr Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
title_full_unstemmed Measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale
title_sort measuring psychological pain: psychometric analysis of the orbach and mikulincer mental pain scale
publisher BMC
series Measurement Instruments for the Social Sciences
issn 2523-8930
publishDate 2021-05-01
description Abstract Background Suicide is a public health concern, with an estimated 1 million individuals dying each year worldwide. Individual psychological pain is believed to be a contributing motivating factor. Therefore, establishing a psychometrically sound tool to adequately measure psychological pain is important. The Orbach and Mikulincer Mental Pain Scale (OMMP) has been proposed; however, previous psychometric analysis on the OMMP has not yielded a consistent scale structure, and the internal consistency of the subscales has not met recommended values. Therefore, the primary purpose of this study was to assess the psychometric properties of the OMMP in a diverse sample. Methods A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) on the 9-factor, 44-item OMMP was conducted on the full sample (n = 1151). Because model fit indices were not met, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was conducted on a random subset of the data (n = 576) to identify a more parsimonious structure. The EFA structure was then tested in a covariance model in the remaining subset of participants (n = 575). Multigroup invariance testing was subsequently performed to examine psychometric properties of the refined scale. Results The CFA of the original 9-factor, 44-item OMMP did not meet recommended model fit recommendations. The EFA analysis results revealed a 3-factor, 9-item scale (i.e., OMMP-9). The covariance model of the OMMP-9 indicated further refinement was necessary. Multigroup invariance testing conducted on the final 3-factor, 8-item scale (i.e., OMMP-8) across mental health diagnoses, sex, injury status, age, activity level, and athlete classification met all criteria for invariance. Conclusions The 9-factor, 44-item OMMP does not meet recommended measurement criteria and should not be recommended for use in research and clinical practice in its current form. The refined OMMP-8 may be a more viable option to use; however, more research should be completed prior to adoption.
topic Psychological pain
Psychometrics
Confirmatory factor analysis
Invariance testing
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s42409-021-00025-8
work_keys_str_mv AT madelinepcasanova measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
AT megancnelson measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
AT michaelapickering measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
AT karenmappleby measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
AT emmajgrindley measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
AT lindsaywlarkins measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
AT russelltbaker measuringpsychologicalpainpsychometricanalysisoftheorbachandmikulincermentalpainscale
_version_ 1721429922066464768