How valid are measures of beliefs about the causes of illness? The example of myocardial infarction

Abstract

In Multi-Trait Multi-Method (MTMM) studies of causal attributions for laboratory events, there is little evidence of convergent and discriminant validity for attribution measures. We report the first MTMM study to investigate the validity of two methods of eliciting causal beliefs for an illness, specifically, myocardial infarction. Adult respondents (N = 107) listed causes of MI, then completed questionnaire rating scales for causal beliefs for MI. Measures were compared using both Campbell and Fiske's approach to MTMM. analyses, and a Confirmatory Factor Analysis approach. Neither single item measures causal beliefs, nor scales of causal beliefs derived using exploratory factor analysis provided much evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Confirmatory factor analysis showed that a model containing only causal belief factors provided a moderately good fit to the data. Adding a questionnaire method factor significantly improved the fit of the model, as well as substantially changing the pattern of factor loadings: loadings of questionnaire items on causal belief factors were markedly reduced. These results highlight major problems with the measurement of causal beliefs, and in particular question the validity of factor analysis of questionnaire measures of causal beliefs. They also suggest that at least some of the MI causal belief factors reported in the literature are artefacts of common questionnaire method variance

Discerning the impact of personal and situational variables in risk perception of coronary heart disease

“…Thus, being a smoker, having a family history of CHD and being older, were the most significant predictors for higher risk judgements. These findings are consistent with previous research (French et al, 2005) and indicate that participants show some accurate knowledge about risk factors for CHD. This suggests participants have a synergistic perspective of CHD risk reflecting the dynamic nature about how people think about health risks.…”

Causal attributions for raised cholesterol and perceptions of effective risk-reduction: Self-regulation strategies for an increased risk of coronary heart disease

“…Factor analysis supported the combining scores on these items comprised the behavioural causal model scale. Whilst factor analysis is a commonly used technique for reducing causal attribution items to dimensions, some caution is needed when interpreting these solutions given a recent study which suggests that method variance may account for the apparent relationship between items (French, Marteau, Senior, & Weinman, 2005). The scales at 1 week and 6 months were internally consistent ( ¼ 0.85 and ¼ 0.83, respectively).…”

Causal beliefs about obesity and associated health behaviors: results from a population-based survey

“…Although this has been a common approach in prior research, we acknowledge the inherent limitations of single-item measures. Further research is needed on the measurement of disease causal beliefs [ 36 ]. In addition, assessments of physical activity and diet were based on self-reports, which may result in overestimates of actual behavior, but would not be expected to influence the association between beliefs and behaviors.…”