The Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale: Psychometric Properties and Form Equivalence

Abstract

This study examined the psychometric equivalence of Forms A and B of the Multidimensional Health Locus of Control Scale in a sample of college students (N = 370; M = 19.5 yr.; 318 Caucasians; 281 women). Given the dearth of studies that address the issue of form equivalence directly, this study sought to ascertain whether these forms could be used interchangeably by researchers. Subscales on the two forms had fairly high correlations (range of r = .77-.81), and similar alpha and omega reliability coefficients. Additionally, confirmatory factor analysis revealed both forms fit a three-factor model well. However, paired-sample t tests yielded significant mean differences for all three subscales. Furthermore, the two forms yielded inconsistent associations with relevant measures. Although the observed pattern of associations with social desirability and safe swimming behaviors were similar for Forms A and B, the pattern of differences was not identical for smoking groups and bicycle helmet use groups between forms. Overall, these results suggested that Forms A and B do not meet the strict criteria for parallel forms, but instead should be considered alternative forms.

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…”

“…This situation arises from the eighth item in the internal control subdimension, which was interpreted in the discussion of the item statistics. The reliability of the internal control subdimension was below 0.70 (Kılıç, 2016) in all studies (Athale et al, 2010;Hashemian et al, 2014;Kuwahara et al, 2004;Moshki et al, 2007) except two studies (Ross et al, 2015;Wallston et al, 1978). The internal consistency coefficient for this study was found to be low for the internal control subdimension in sample 1 (0.66), while it was in the acceptable range for sample 2 (0.72) (Kılıç, 2016).…”

“…In a study conducted by Moshki, Ghofranipour, Hajizadeh, and Azadfallah (2007) on the validity and reliability of the MHLC Form Ain Iran, the total correlation coefficient of item 8 was found to be lower than the other items in the internal locus of control subdimension (except for the first item). In a study conducted by Ross, Ross, Short, and Cataldo (2015) in order to determine the psychometric properties of the MHLC Form A, the item with the lowest factor load within the internal control subdimension was the eighth item with 0.29. The results of research to determine the validity and reliability or psychometric properties of the MHLC Form A were found to be consistent with the results of this study.…”

A Cognitive‐Affective Scale for Hurricane Risk Perception

“…(49) The concept has also been used widely in health behavior studies, where a health-specific variation on the scale is often used (the multidimensional health locus of control scales) to examine subjects such as pregnancy risks or treatment decisions for cancer. (50)(51)(52) The concept has also been applied to safety studies involving, for example, driving, aircraft piloting, or agriculture. (53)(54)(55) And locus of control has been used in studies of natural disasters, including hurricanes, flooding, and earthquakes.…”

“…Internals tend to perceive greater self‐efficacy, and also perceive lower levels of risk . The concept has also been used widely in health behavior studies, where a health‐specific variation on the scale is often used (the multidimensional health locus of control scales) to examine subjects such as pregnancy risks or treatment decisions for cancer . The concept has also been applied to safety studies involving, for example, driving, aircraft piloting, or agriculture .…”