Search

We examined public opinion regarding unique aspects of abortion legality to better understand potential contexts in which stigma may occur and the extent that people (a) believe actors involved in abortion (i.e., pregnant woman, healthcare provider, man involved in the pregnancy, someone providing information about where to get an abortion, parents of a minor) should be held responsible for illegal abortion, (b) believe abortion should be illegal across different circumstances, and (c) endorse different punishments for pregnant women and healthcare providers, including variation by responsibility. An online survey was administered to 2,489 English and Spanish-speaking U.S. adults, using quota-based sampling, with post-stratification weights applied to match U.S. benchmarks. People scored healthcare providers and women more responsible than other actors. Although the majority did not support abortion being illegal for most circumstances, a substantial proportion were unsure. Additionally, "no punishment" was most frequently selected for the woman and healthcare provider. However, those who endorsed any punishment, compared with no punishment, typically indicated the pregnant woman and healthcare provider were more responsible. Our findings suggest that current laws criminalizing abortion are misaligned with public opinion and that pregnant women and healthcare providers are likely most susceptible to abortion-related stigma. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Abortion is common in the United States (US), although access is becoming more difficult for some. In addition to restrictive policies that ban most abortion, limit the number of providers and increase costs, barriers to access also include less supportive cultural climates and stigma related to abortion. Prior to the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health decision of the United States Supreme Court, research suggested that people generally believed it was easy to access abortion, but this research did not examine the underlying factors that drive these perceptions. Methods: In 2019, using data from closed and open‐ended survey questions, we examined differences in people's assessment of abortion access within the state they reside and factors that influence those perceptions. We recruited English‐ and Spanish‐speaking US adults (N = 2599) from Qualtrics' national panel using quota‐based sampling to participate in a web‐based survey. We used multinomial logistic regression to examine predictors of access perceptions across demographic characteristics and thematic analysis to analyze open‐ended responses. Results: Fifty‐three percent of participants believed abortion was easy to access in their state. Spanish speakers and participants from legislatively "hostile" states were more likely to perceive access as difficult. Legality‐related knowledge and pro‐life identity were associated with perceiving abortion access as easy. Conclusions: Prior to Dobbs, participants' interpretation of the ease or difficulty of accessing abortion were subjective. Misconceptions about state abortion laws and the prevalence of providers were common, suggesting a need for more education about abortion laws, policies, and access. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relationship between people's attitudes about abortion acceptability and the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade—two distinct but related issues—has not been rigorously explored. The authors used a mixed-methods approach for analyzing in-depth interviews to better understand how participants' feelings toward abortion acceptability are related to perceptions of whether abortion should be legal. The authors then assessed (1) correlations between abortion acceptability and different measures of support for Roe v. Wade, and (2) how the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade may evoke different responses via an online survey fielded in 2018. The study's qualitative results highlight that there is a disjuncture between people's moral feelings toward abortion and their attitudes toward abortion legality. The study's quantitative results further demonstrate that correlations between abortion acceptability and support for Roe v. Wade are moderate, and the differences in responses to the phrasing of survey items related to Roe v. Wade are moderated by knowledge. The authors recommend that when researchers develop survey items, they avoid ambiguities of abortion as a general construct, especially when public opinion measures on abortion are employed for research and the design of social and health policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A study was conducted to implement the use of a standardized effect size and corresponding classification guidelines for polytomous data with the POLYSIBTEST procedure and compare those guidelines with prior recommendations. Two simulation studies were included. The first identifies new unstandardized test heuristics for classifying moderate and large differential item functioning (DIF) for polytomous response data with three to seven response options. These are provided for researchers studying polytomous data using POLYSIBTEST software that has been published previously. The second simulation study provides one pair of standardized effect size heuristics that can be employed with items having any number of response options and compares true-positive and false-positive rates for the standardized effect size proposed by Weese with one proposed by Zwick et al. and two unstandardized classification procedures (Gierl; Golia). All four procedures retained false-positive rates generally below the level of significance at both moderate and large DIF levels. However, Weese's standardized effect size was not affected by sample size and provided slightly higher true-positive rates than the Zwick et al. and Golia's recommendations, while flagging substantially fewer items that might be characterized as having negligible DIF when compared with Gierl's suggested criterion. The proposed effect size allows for easier use and interpretation by practitioners as it can be applied to items with any number of response options and is interpreted as a difference in standard deviation units. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A simulation study was conducted to investigate the heuristics of the SIBTEST procedure and how it compares with ETS classification guidelines used with the Mantel–Haenszel procedure. Prior heuristics have been used for nearly 25 years, but they are based on a simulation study that was restricted due to computer limitations and that modeled item parameters from estimates of ACT and ASVAB tests from 1987 and 1984, respectively. Further, suggested heuristics for data fitting a two-parameter logistic model (2PL) have essentially went unused since their original presentation. This simulation study incorporates a wide range of data conditions to recommend heuristics for both 2PL and three-parameter logistic (3PL) data that correspond with ETS's Mantel–Haenszel heuristics. Levels of agreement between the new SIBTEST heuristics and Mantel–Haenszel heuristics were similar for 2PL data and higher than prior SIBTEST heuristics for 3PL data. The new recommendations provide higher true-positive rates for 2PL data. Conversely, they displayed decreased true-positive rates for 3PL data. False-positive rates, overall, remained below the level of significance for the new heuristics. Unequal group sizes resulted in slightly larger false-positive rates than balanced designs for both prior and new SIBTEST heuristics, with rates less than alpha levels for equal ability distributions and unbalanced designs versus false-positive rates slightly higher than alpha with unequal ability distributions and unbalanced designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence-based models are critical for understanding caregiver well-being and treatment interventions from a holistic perspective. This study introduces the Indivisible Self: An Evidence-Based Model of Wellness (IS-WEL) as a means for examining the holistic wellness of pediatric stroke caregivers. In this exploratory study, 161 participants completed a demographic survey and the Five-Factor Wellness Inventory (FF-WEL). Results indicate significant wellness score differences between the current sample of pediatric stroke caregivers and the FF-WEL norming sample on the higher order Total Wellness factor, the second-order wellness factors of Creative Self and Social Self, and the third-order wellness factors of thinking, emotions, control, positive humor, and love. These results support the veracity of the IS-WEL as an additional empirically sound holistic approach for understanding and addressing the well-being of stroke caregivers. The authors discuss practical clinical and research implications for utilizing the IS-WEL with pediatric stroke caregivers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The generalized partial credit model (GPCM) is often used for polytomous data; however, the nominal response model (NRM) allows for the investigation of how adjacent categories may discriminate differently when items are positively or negatively worded. Ten items from three different self-reported scales were used (anxiety, depression, and perceived stress), and authors wrote an additional item worded in the opposite direction to pair with each original item. Sets of the original and reverse-worded items were administered, and responses were analyzed using the two models. The NRM fit significantly better than the GPCM, and it was able to detect category responses that may not function well. Positively worded items tended to be more discriminating than negatively worded items. For the depression scale, category boundary locations tended to have a larger range for the positively worded items than for the negatively worded items from both models. Some pairs of items functioned comparably when reverse-worded, but others did not. If an examinee responds in an extreme category to an item, the same examinee is not necessarily likely to respond in an extreme category at the opposite end of the rating scale to a similar item worded in the opposite direction. Results of this study may support the use of scales composed of items worded in the same direction, and particularly in the positive direction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]