Validation of the Attitudes Towards Psychological Online Interventions Questionnaire Among Black Americans: Cross-cultural Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acceptability of digital mental health interventions is a significant predictor of treatment-seeking behavior and engagement. However, acceptability has been conceptualized and operationalized in various ways, which decreases measurement precision and leads to heterogeneous conclusions about acceptability. Standardized self-report measures of acceptability have been developed, which have the potential to ameliorate these problems, but none have demonstrated evidence for validation among Black communities, which limits our understanding of attitudes toward these interventions among racially minoritized groups with well-documented barriers to mental health treatment. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine the psychometric validity and reliability of one of the first and most widely used measures of acceptability, the Attitudes Towards Psychological Online Interventions Questionnaire, among a Black American sample. METHODS: Participants (N=254) were recruited from a large southeastern university and the surrounding metropolitan area and completed the self-report measure via a web-based survey. A confirmatory factor analysis using mean and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation was conducted to examine the validity of the underlying hierarchical 4-factor structure proposed by the original authors of the scale. An alternative, hierarchical 2-factor structure model and bifactor model were examined for comparative fit. RESULTS: The findings indicated that the bifactor model demonstrated a superior fit (comparative fit index=0.96, Tucker-Lewis index=0.94, standardized root mean squared residual=0.03, and root mean square error of approximation=0.09) compared with both 2- and 4-factor hierarchical structure models. CONCLUSIONS: The findings suggest that, within a Black American sample, there may be greater utility in interpreting the Attitudes Towards Psychological Online Interventions Questionnaire subscales as attitudinal constructs that are distinct from the global acceptability factor. The theoretical and practical implications for culturally responsive measurements were explored.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".