Key Takeaways
Extended Takeaways
- The validation sample included 337 completed responses across psychiatric, medical, and surgical units, yielding approximately 17.7 participants per item for the 19-item scale and placing the study within the authors’ prespecified optimal range for factor analysis.
- The APREMDI retained the original 6 domains of dignity, but psychometric testing suggested a strong general dignity factor: the first factor explained 53.56% of the total variance, and parallel analysis showed F1 explaining 53.71% in real data versus 12.36% in simulated datasets.
- Internal structure metrics support using total scores in routine inpatient assessment, with evidence of closeness to unidimensionality including unidimensional congruence of 0.977, explained common variance of 0.885, and mean item residual absolute loading of 0.227.
- At the item level, V7 and V8 were the most sensitive markers of differences in perceived dignity, while discrimination ranged from 0.532 for V16 to 3.718 for V8; these items may be especially useful when reviewing ward practices for potentially disrespectful interactions.
- The scale appears feasible for hospital use in educated populations: readability indices included Flesch Reading Ease of 44.9, Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 11.1, Coleman-Liau Index of 12.0, and average reading time of 1.08 to 1.35 minutes.
- Education level did not significantly affect age, hospitalization length, or completion time in this sample, with F2,334 = 1.27, P = .281 for age, F2,334 = 0.31, P = .731 for length of stay, and F2,334 = 0.13, P = .877 for time to complete the scale.
