Development and Psychometric Validation of a Scale Measuring Stigma Toward People with Disabilities in the Adult Population
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24016/2026.v12.557Keywords:
Stigma, disability, psychometrics, construct validity, factor analysisAbstract
Background: Disability stigma can restrict participation and access to opportunities, yet culturally specific measures of public disability stigma remain limited in Peru.
Objective: To develop and evaluate the psychometric properties of a Spanish-language scale assessing public stigma toward persons with disabilities among adults in Juliaca, Peru.
Method: A cross-sectional instrumental study was conducted with a non-probability convenience sample of 1,065 adults from Juliaca, Peru. Six experts assessed content validity using Aiken’s V. The sample was divided into mutually exclusive development (n = 533) and confirmatory (n = 532) subsamples. Exploratory factor analysis used polychoric correlations, MINRES extraction, and Promax rotation; competing confirmatory models were estimated with WLSMV. Internal consistency, average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability, HTMT, and measurement invariance across sex were examined.
Results: Content validity was strong (Aiken’s V = .96–1.00). Parallel analysis favored two factors, whereas the four-factor exploratory solution showed the strongest relative multidimensional fit and explained 62.6% of the variance. In the confirmatory sample, the empirical four-factor model showed the strongest relative fit, χ²(164) = 902.79, CFI = .935, TLI = .924, RMSEA = .092, SRMR = .051. Reliability was acceptable to good; HTMT indicated limited differentiation between two factors (.924). Metric invariance across sex was supported.
Conclusions: The scale showed promising preliminary psychometric evidence in adults from Juliaca. Further refinement and independent replication are needed before broader application in disability and rehabilitation research.
Downloads
References
Adugna, M. B., Ghahari, S., & Lysaght, R. (2025). Disability stigma and the pursuit of inclusion among children with physical disabilities in northwest Ethiopia. Disability and Rehabilitation, 47(3), 676–686. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2024.2356016.
Aiken, L. R. (1985). Three coefficients for analyzing the reliability and validity of ratings. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45(1), 131–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164485451012.
Boateng, G. O., Neilands, T. B., Frongillo, E. A., Melgar-Quiñonez, H. R., & Young, S. L. (2018). Best practices for developing and validating scales for health, social, and behavioral research: A primer. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, 149. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2018.00149.
Bos, A. E. R., Pryor, J. B., Reeder, G. D., & Stutterheim, S. E. (2013). Stigma: Advances in theory and research. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.746147.
Carew, M. T. (2026). Separating disability stigma from health stigma: Implications for health and rehabilitation research and practice. Disability and Rehabilitation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/09638288.2026.2652836.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
Consejo Nacional para la Integración de la Persona con Discapacidad. (2026). Memoria anual 2025. https://www.gob.pe/institucion/conadis/informes-publicaciones/7991210-memoria-anual-2025
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.9.4.466.
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.
Gadermann, A. M., Guhn, M., & Zumbo, B. D. (2012). Estimating ordinal reliability for Likert-type and ordinal item response data: A conceptual, empirical, and practical guide. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.7275/n560-j767.
Garrido, L. E., Abad, F. J., & Ponsoda, V. (2013). A new look at Horn’s parallel analysis with ordinal variables. Psychological Methods, 18(4), 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030005.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Prentice-Hall.
Goretzko, D., Siemund, K., & Sterner, P. (2024). Evaluating model fit of measurement models in confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 84(1), 123–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231163813.
Groskurth, K., Bluemke, M., & Lechner, C. M. (2024). Why we need to abandon fixed cutoffs for goodness-of-fit indices: An extensive simulation and possible solutions. Behavior Research Methods, 56(4), 3891–3914. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-023-02193-3.
Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43, 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8.
Heydarian, N. M., Frankowski, S. D., Lee, M., Oh, K. M., An, K., Shin, C., Hughes, A. S., Kartik, R., & Bogart, K. R. (2025). Validating the revised Attitudes Toward People With Disabilities Scale with health care professionals. Rehabilitation Psychology, 70(4), 522–534. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000594.
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Instituto Nacional de Estadística e Informática. (2019). Perfil sociodemográfico de la población con discapacidad, 2017. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/Est/Lib1675/libro.pdf
Li, C.-H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 936–949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7.
Link, B. G., & Phelan, J. C. (2001). Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 363–385. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4(1), 84–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.1.84.
Myong, Y., Shin, H.-I., Lee, J.-E., Cho, W., & Yi, Y. G. (2021). Development and validation of a new scale to assess attitudes and perspectives toward persons with disabilities. Annals of Rehabilitation Medicine, 45(4), 331–340. https://doi.org/10.5535/arm.21046.
Park, J., Levine, A., Kuo, H. J., Lee, B., & Beymer, P. N. (2023). Validation of the Multiple Disability Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward persons with disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 68(2), 194–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/rep0000494.
Penfield, R. D., & Giacobbi, P. R., Jr. (2004). Applying a score confidence interval to Aiken’s item content-relevance index. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 8(4), 213–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327841MPEE0804_3.
Power, M. J., Green, A. M., & WHOQOL-DIS Group. (2010). The Attitudes to Disability Scale (ADS): Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(9), 860–874. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01317.x.
R Core Team. (2026). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.5.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.r-project.org/
Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.
Ruiz Fasabi, E. M., Vargas Caro, F., & Tapullima-Mori, C. (2025). Diseño y validación de la Escala de actitudes hacia las personas con Discapacidad (SAPD) en ciudadanos peruanos. Propósitos y Representaciones, 13, e1938. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2025.v13.1938.
Stefana, A., Damiani, S., Granziol, U., Provenzani, U., Solmi, M., Youngstrom, E. A., & Fusar-Poli, P. (2025). Psychological, psychiatric, and behavioral sciences measurement scales: Best practice guidelines for their development and validation. Frontiers in Psychology, 15, 1494261. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1494261.
Stevens, L. F., Getachew, M. A., Perrin, P. B., Rivera, D., Olivera Plaza, S. L., & Arango-Lasprilla, J. C. (2013). Factor analysis of the Spanish Multidimensional Attitudes Scale Toward Persons with Disabilities. Rehabilitation Psychology, 58(4), 396–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034064.
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (A/RES/61/106).
Universidad Peruana Unión. (2021). Código de Ética para la Investigación (versión 2021). Universidad Peruana Unión.
Virendrakumar, B., Stephen, C., Jolley, E., Pente, V., & Schmidt, E. (2026). Intervention effectiveness reducing disability stigma in sub-Saharan Africa: Systematic review. African Journal of Disability, 15, a1780. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajod.v15i0.1780.
World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability and health: ICF.
World Health Organization. (2022). Global report on health equity for persons with disabilities.
World Health Organization. (2023, March 7). Disability.
Worthington, R. L., & Whittaker, T. A. (2006). Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist, 34(6), 806–838. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000006288127.
Wu, H., & Estabrook, R. (2016). Identification of confirmatory factor analysis models of different levels of invariance for ordered categorical outcomes. Psychometrika, 81(4), 1014–1045. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-016-9506-0.
Additional Files
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Interacciones
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The authors retain the copyright and give the journal the right of the first publication and that they can edit it, reproduce it, distribute it, exhibit it and communicate it in the country and abroad through printed and digital media.
The digital version of the journal is registered under a Creative Commons license (Under Creative Commons License): Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). Therefore, this work can be reproduced, distributed and publicly communicated in digital format, provided that the names of the authors and Interacciones.
Therefore, it is established that authors can make other independent and additional behavioural agreements for the non-exclusive distribution of the version of the article published in this journal (eg, include it in institutional repositories or publish it in a book) as long as it is clearly indicated that the work was published for the first time in this journal.
