The Multi-Dimensional Blood/Injury Phobia Inventory: Its psychometric properties and relationship with disgust propensity and disgust sensitivity

Overveld, Mark van; Jong, Peter J. de; Peters, Madelon L.

doi:10.1016/j.janxdis.2010.10.004

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We did not find differences between stimuli, and there was only one factor for all images and videos. Other pencil-and-paper instruments found differences between medical fears and blood and injury (Kleinknecht, 1994; van Overveld et al, 2011). In this study, the participants responded similarly to images and videos and in a similar way to images with blood, wounds, injuries, cuts or injections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The assessment of specific phobias has been centered on three characteristic responses (Lang, Cuthbert, & Bradley, 1998): Subjective anxiety responses (anxiety levels, fear or anticipation) recorded with self-reports and questionnaires, physiological responses (such as electrical skin responses, heart rate responses or myographic responses) recorded through polygraphs and clinical instruments, and avoidance motor responses (such as denial at being faced with a stimulus, a short latency, or the complete elimination of the stimulus) recorded through observation using the Behavioral Avoidance Test (BAT). Because of these three types of characteristic responses (physiological, cognitive and avoidance or escape), three measures should be used simultaneously for the complete assessment (Dymond & Roche, 2009; Eyfert & Wilson, 1991; Gamez, Kotov, & Watson, 2010; van Overveld, de Jong, & Peters, 2011).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the pencil-and-paper questionnaires, the most commonly used is the Blood-Injection Symptom Scale and the State Blood-Injection Symptom Scale (BISS and SBISS; Page, 1999), which are scales focused on blood and injections, with three factors: Fainting, anxiety and tension. The Multi-Dimensional Blood-Injury Phobia Inventory (MBPI; van Overveld et al, 2011), which has 40 items, evaluates several kinds of stimuli in five response categories (fear, avoidance, pain, disgust and fainting). The 70-item Medical Fear Survey (MFS; Kleinknecht, Kleinknecht, Sawchuck, Lee, & Lohr, 1999) also includes other medical fears, and it has high reliability and convergent validity with other medical questionnaires.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Creating a Computerized Instrument for the Assessment of Blood-Injury-Injection Phobia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A new computerized instrument (the Multimedia Behavioral Avoidance Test, or MBAT) for blood-injury-injection phobia (BII) assessment is presented. Analogous stimuli such as images and videos can also elicit anxiety responses; thus, they can be used for the assessment of phobia. The MBAT was applied to participants via computer, and subjective anxiety responses and time latency were recorded. The MBAT was composed of 30 original images and 30 videos related to blood, injury and injections. The MBAT was compared with other pencil-and-paper questionnaires for BII phobia, and heart rate was also measured with a pulsioximeter. The participants included 160 students and professionals (34.5% males, 65.6% females; mean 28.6 years old). The results showed a high reliability for internal consistency in images and videos (α = .98 both), with a single factor that groups all the items. In addition, the MBAT had high concurrent validity (r = .78 to .85) with the different anxiety scales compared. The MBAT diagnosed 12 participants with possible BII phobia. It is a useful instrument in the assessment of this kind of phobia because it is easier and quicker than pencil-and-paper questionnaires, it uses more objective measurements, and it is useful in planning subsequent exposure with images and videos.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Creating a Computerized Instrument for the Assessment of Blood-Injury-Injection Phobia

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Despite the central importance of understanding public attitudes to needle use for vaccination and other medical procedures, little is known regarding the myriad contributors to this phenomenon, and most previous scales designed to study needle attitudes, experiences and fear were developed without fundamental qualitative research, in the absence of a multidimensional approach—often focusing exclusively on needle fear, anxiety or even phobia—or in populations with suboptimal generalisability 8–15…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale: a UK-based and US-based online mixed-methods psychometric development and validation study of an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general public

Kantor,

Vanderslott,

Morrison

et al. 2023

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo develop and validate the Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale, an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general population.DesignCross-sectional validation study.SettingInternet-based with participants in the UK and USA.ParticipantsUK and US representative samples stratified by age, sex, and ethnicity using the Prolific Academic platform.Main outcome measuresExploratory factor analysis with categorical variables and a polychoric correlation matrix followed by promax oblique rotation on the UK sample for the ONE scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with a Satorra-Bentler scaled test statistic evaluating the root mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA), standardised root mean squared residual (SRMR) and comparative fit index (CFI) on the US sample. Reliability as internal consistency using McDonald’s omega. Convergent validity using the Pearson correlation coefficient. Predictive and discriminant validity using logistic regression ORs of association (OR).ResultsThe population included 1000 respondents, 500 in the UK and 500 in the USA. Minimum average partial correlation and a scree plot suggested four factors should be retained: injection hesitancy, blood-related hesitancy, recalled negative experiences and perceived benefits, yielding a 19-question scale. On CFA, the RMSEA was 0.070 (90% CI, 0.064 to 0.077), SRMR 0.053 and CFI 0.925. McDonald’s omega was 0.92 and 0.93 in the UK and US samples, respectively. Convergent validity with the four-item Oxford Coronavirus Explanations, Attitudes and Narratives Survey (OCEANS) needle fear scale demonstrated a strong correlation (r=0.83). Predictive validity with a single-question COVID-19 vaccination status question demonstrated a strong association, OR (95% CI) 0.97 (0.96 to 0.98), p<0.0001 in the US sample. Discriminant validity with a question regarding the importance of controlling what enters the body confirmed the ONE score does not predict this unrelated outcome, OR 1.00 (0.99, 1.01), p=0.996 in the US sample.ConclusionsThe ONE scale is a reliable and valid multidimensional scale that may be useful in predicting vaccine hesitancy, designing public health interventions to improve vaccine uptake and exploring alternatives to needles for medical procedures.

show abstract

“…It includes 40 items developed by crossing questions for one's self and others. MBPI is the only scale that measures both anxiety and disgust against blood phobia stimulus (van Overveld et al 2011). However, this scale does not include a question about dentist phobia.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Validity and Reliability Study of MBPI (Multidimensional Blood/Injury Phobia Inventory)

Ak¹,

Kılıç²

2013

Turkish Journal of Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aims to translate the 40-item MBPI (Multidimensional Blood/Injury Phobia Inventory) into Turkish and examination the reliability and validity figures of this scale. Method: Trained interviewers assessed 477 factory workers using a battery of self-report measures including demographic information and MBPI that had been translated into Turkish by the study team. 61 of the 477 were also interviewed face-to-face by the investigator using the anxiety disorders/phobias sections of the CIDI (Composite International Diagnostic Interview). Results: MBPI had high internal consistency value (Cronbach alpha= 0.94). Validity studies showed scales successfully discriminated patient groups from healthy controls. Factor analysis of MBPI resulted in five factors; the factor contents were very similar to the original scale. Conclusion: Our study has demonstrated the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of MBPI.

show abstract

The Multi-Dimensional Blood/Injury Phobia Inventory: Its psychometric properties and relationship with disgust propensity and disgust sensitivity

Cited by 15 publications

References 28 publications

Creating a Computerized Instrument for the Assessment of Blood-Injury-Injection Phobia

Creating a Computerized Instrument for the Assessment of Blood-Injury-Injection Phobia

The Oxford Needle Experience (ONE) scale: a UK-based and US-based online mixed-methods psychometric development and validation study of an instrument to assess needle fear, attitudes and expectations in the general public

The Validity and Reliability Study of MBPI (Multidimensional Blood/Injury Phobia Inventory)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About