Arabic validation of the "Mental Health Knowledge Schedule" and the "Reported and Intended Behavior Scale".

Objectives: Mental illness affects one in eight people in the world according to the WHO. It is a leading cause of morbidity and a major public health problem. Stigma harms the quality of life of people with mental illness. This study aimed at validating the Arabic version of the Mental Health Knowledge Schedule (MAKS) and the Reported and Intended Behavior Scale (RIBS) in a sample of Tunisian students and determining socio-demographic and clinical factors correlated with stigma. Methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted on 2,501 Tunisian students who filled in the MAKS, the RIBS, and a sociodemographic and clinical questionnaire. The validation of the questionnaires in Arabic was carried out using the validity criteria: face and content validity, reliability, and construct validity. Next, the associations between stigma and sample characteristics have been studied using multivariate linear regression. Results: Face and content validity of the measures MAKS and RIBS were satisfactory, with adequate internal consistency. There were significant positive correlations between the items and scales, and test-retest reliability was excellent. The internal validity showed that the items were well-aligned with the intended factors, and the external validity revealed a significant positive relationship between the MAKS and RIBS. Besides, gender, the field of study, psychiatric history, and contact with someone with a mental illness were all contributing factors to mental illness stigma. Additionally, men performed better than women in terms of behavior toward people with mental illness, while women had a greater level of knowledge about mental health. Conclusion: The Arabic versions of the MAKS and RIBS have appropriate psychometric properties, making them effective tools for evaluating mental illness stigma. With multiple factors contributing to this issue, these instruments can help focus anti-stigma efforts and promote a more inclusive society.

SF-36 scales, and simple sums of scales, were reliable quality-of-life summaries for patients with schizophrenia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the feasibility and reliability of the Medical Outcomes Study 36 Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) for patients with schizophrenia, focusing on the eight scales and various aggregate summary measures. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Secondary analysis of data from the European multicenter QUATRO medication adherence trial and the Regional Psychosis Project from The Netherlands. Methods included exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses and estimation of aggregate score reliability using Cronbach's alpha and Tarkkonen's generalized reliability index. The aggregate scores that were compared included two sets based on factor analyses, the standard "physical and mental health component summary scores" (PCS and MCS) and scores based on the original conceptual model of the SF-36 (simple sum of first four scales for physical health, last four for mental health). RESULTS: The eight SF-36 scales were feasible to administer and reliable. Factor analyses of the QUATRO baseline scale data suggested two or three factors, the latter solution including a general "role limitation" factor. Aggregate scores based on the conceptual model had the highest generalized reliability of those compared. CONCLUSION: SF-36 scales are suitable for patients with schizophrenia. Aggregate scores based on the conceptual model may be preferable to the MCS and PCS for such patients. Further investigation of factor structure is advisable.