The Empowerment Scale contains eight domains that are divided into three subscales. The sum score of the three individual subscales represents three different aspects of empowerment (i.e., second-order models), such as personal, interpersonal, and social political aspects. The total score of the eight domains reflect the overall empowerment status (i.e., third-order factor). However, factor structures of the Empowerment Scale have not been evaluated in patients with schizophrenia in Taiwan. Therefore, the main purpose of this study was to examine construct validity (i.e., one 8-factor model [first-order], three second-order models, and one third-order model) of the Empowerment Scale using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). We also examined floor/ceiling effects and internal consistency in patients with schizophrenia. We obtained 339 self-administered data of the Empowerment Scale in patients with schizophrenia. The CFA results of the 8-factor model showed that item 27 (Social reality cannot be changed by people) with low factor loading (0.06). We deleted this item and reconstructed first-order CFA. The Empowerment Scale with 33 items (ES-33) showed a good model fit (χ 2 /df=1.11, CFI=1.00, TLI=1.00, and RMSEA=0.018) and all 33 items had sufficient factor loadings (0.63-0.85). The three second-order models and one third-order model also represented good model fits (χ 2 /df=1.09-1.77, CFI=0.99-1.00, TLI=0.99-1.00, and RMSEA=0.017-0.048). The ES-33 had no floor or ceiling effects (0.3%-3.5% and 1.5%-18.0%, respectively) and also demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (α=0.72-0.90). In summary, the ES-33 had satisfactory psychometric properties. Future users may use the ES-33 to capture the multiple dimensions of empowerment and overall empowerment status in patients with schizophrenia.

Purpose. To measure the effects of community cohesion and crime cognition on overall quality of life (QOL) and its four domains (physical, psychological, social, and environmental) and to determine whether these effects are mediated by neighbour relationship among community-dwelling old adults. Methods. A cross-sectional survey of 176 community-dwelling older Taiwanese and path analyses were conducted. Neighbour relationship was assessed using a 5-item, 5-point Likert scale; community cohesion using an 8-item, 5-point Likert scale; crime cognition using a 20-item, 10-point Likert scale; and QOL using the 28-item WHOQOL-BREF (Taiwan version). All were self-report questionnaires; higher scores indicated higher levels. Results. Neighbour relationship as a mediator had a good fit in the four domains and overall QOL. The predictors (community cohesion and crime cognition) explained 23.3% of the variance in the physical domain, 30.7% in the psychological domain, 33.2% in the social domain, 38.5% in the environmental domain, and 39.3% in the overall QOL. Community cohesion had a greater effect on four domains of QOL than crime cognition. The effect of community cohesion on QOL was largely directly rather than indirectly (through mediation by neighbour relationship). Conclusion. Both community cohesion and crime cognition affect QOL of older adults. Neighbour relationship only mildly mediated community cohesion and crime cohesion.