The health locus of control concept: Factorial structure, psychometric properties and form equivalence of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scales

Abstract

Contradictory evidence exists on the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control scale's factor structure and the psychometric equivalence between Form A and Form B. University students (N = 359) completed the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control and General Self-Efficacy scales. The three-factor model had better fit and parsimony in both Forms. 'Internal' scale negatively correlated with 'chance' but positively with 'others'. The two external scales positively correlated. The scales' reliability was satisfactory, but the two Forms were not psychometrically equivalent. Convergent validity was confirmed. The evidence suggests a three-factor structure and psychometric non-equivalence of the two Forms. Researchers should make an informed choice on which Form to use.

Turkish validity and reliability of Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale Form A

“…This may be due to differences in age and education levels of the sample groups or in the culture and beliefs of the communities in which the samples are selected. The fact that there was a positive relationship between internal control subdimension and powerful others in this study and in some other studies (Athale et al, 2010;Kassianos, Symeou, & Loannou, 2016;Ross et al, 2015) and…”

“…there was a positive relationship between chance and powerful others subdimensions in many studies (Athale et al, 2010;Hubley & Wagner, 2004;Kassianos et al, 2016) except the study of Wallston et al (1978) does not support the assumptions that powerful others subdimension is covered by an external locus of control. Findings regarding the factor structure of these subdimensions confirm the structure that consists of separate scales.…”

The Relationship between Korean Adolescents’ Sports Participation, Internal Health Locus of Control, and Wellness during COVID-19

“…The HLC has three categories: IHLC, powerful others health locus of control (PHLC), and chance health locus of control (CHLC). Individuals with an IHLC believe that health outcomes are attributable to individual behavior and self-control; those with PHLC mainly identify external causes, such as other people, as determinants of their health; and individuals with CHLC believe that their health is determined by circumstantial/accidental factors [ 15 ]. However, according to Bennett et al [ 16 ], people with a strong IHLC and PHLC use smartphone applications to take an active role in their health, while those with CHLC tendencies do not.…”

Seeking control during uncontrollable times: Control abilities and religiosity predict stress during COVID-19

“…For cognitive control, we fitted a one-factor model, with the three tasks as indicators, to the data. For HLOC, we first fitted a three-factor model to the data, with scale items as indicators of the respective factors, but the model fit was unacceptable, similar to previous findings (e.g., Kassianos et al, 2016). Given that parcelling offers better psychometric properties (Little et al, 2002), we fitted a two-factor model with internality (based on its scale items) and externality factors (based on four parcels formed by items from highly correlated powerful-others and chance subscales, r > 0.80).…”