CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 15Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsPsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

The development, validation, and feasibility of the Experienced Coercion Scale

Nyttingnes, Olav, Rugkåsa, Jorun, Holmén, Aina, Ruud, Torleif·2017·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/pas0000404
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Existing scales for experienced coercion have limitations. We developed and validated a short self-report form for experienced coercion for use across care settings, care phases, and care measures. In Stage 1, we developed an item pool, based on the literature, patient accounts, interviews, and expert feedback. Stages 2 and 3 consisted of 2 cross-sectional studies, with patients from acute and nonacute inpatient wards, outpatient care, and supported housing. In Stage 2, patients (N = 212) responded to the Coercion Ladder and the experienced coercion items from Stage 1. We selected 20 items for Stage 3 based on item performance in typically coercive versus voluntary care settings, each items' relation to the Coercion Ladder score, and with regard to the component structure from principal component analysis (PCA). In Stage 3, we collected and examined item responses and clinical and coercion data from a new sample of patients (N = 219). We selected 15 items based on factor loadings to form part of the final Experienced Coercion Scale (ECS). The internal consistency was high and score distribution approached the normal curve. ECS sum scores correlated strongly with scores on the Coercion Ladder. In a regression analysis, demographic variables, diagnosis, duration of treatment, and care setting did not predict ECS scores, while legal status and continuing involuntary medication significantly predicted scores. In this initial study, the ECS scores showed promising psychometric properties, suggesting it can be used across care settings and is suitable for research and service evaluation. (PsycINFO Database Record

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000404

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nyttingnes, O., Rugkåsa, J., Holmén, A., & Ruud, T.
Affiliations
Akershus University Hospital (NO)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2017-10
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
1210-1220
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/pas0000404
OpenAlex
W2560586480
Cited by
15
References
35
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
1.34
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Norwegian Directorate of Health
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
coercion in mental health care, involuntary medication, psychometric validation, scale development, psychiatric inpatients, supported housing, legal status
MeSH terms
Adult, Mental Disorders, Coercion, Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Feasibility Studies, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Reproducibility of Results, Self Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review