Psychometric evaluation of the Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13): assessing the reliability, dimensionality and validity in the general population and a patient population

Abstract

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the reliability, dimensionality and validity of the self-report questionnaire Health-Risk Attitude Scale (HRAS-13) in a sample of the general population and a patient population.MethodsSample 1 (n = 930) was recruited from the general population aged 18-65 years in the Netherlands. Sample 2 (n = 486) was recruited from the population of knee and hip osteoarthritis patients aged 45 and over, also from the Netherlands. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's alpha, average inter-item correlation and item-total correlations. Dimensionality was examined using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), principal component analysis (PCA) and bifactor analysis. Validity was assessed by performing known-group analysis using ANOVA tests.ResultsCronbach's alphas of the HRAS-13 were 0.73 in sample 1 and 0.69 in sample 2. Reliability and dimensionality analyses differed slightly between the samples, and suggest that a short version of the HRAS may capture a general component of health-risk attitude. Validity assessment of known groups showed that the HRAS-13 and a likely HRAS-6 distinguished between subgroups of respondents based on most of the assessed characteristics, but not all.DiscussionThese findings are a preliminary indication that the HRAS-13 is a promising multidimensional instrument for measuring health-risk attitude. However, further research in various samples on decisions where health risks play a role is warranted to confirm the dimensionality of the HRAS-13 and the items to be retained in a full or a shorter version.