The development and validation of a new measure of stigma resistance

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI)STUDY 1: Objective: Stigma resistance is consistently linked with key recovery outcomes, yet theoretical work is limited. This study explored stigma resistance from the perspective of individuals with serious mental illness (SMI). Methods: Twenty-four individuals with SMI who were either peer-service-providers (those with lived experience providing services; n = 14) or consumers of mental health services (n = 10) engaged in semi-structured interviews regarding experiences with stigma, self-stigma, and stigma resistance, including key elements of this process and examples of situations in which they resisted stigma. Results: Stigma resistance is an ongoing, active process that involves using one’s experiences, knowledge, and sets of skills at the 1) personal, 2) peer, and 3) public levels. Stigma resistance at the personal level involves a) not believing stigma or catching and challenging stigmatizing thoughts, b) empowering oneself by learning about mental health and recovery, c) maintaining one’s recovery and proving stigma wrong, and d) developing a meaningful identity beyond mental illness. Stigma resistance at the peer level involves using one’s experiences to help others fight stigma and at the public level, resistance involved a) education, b) challenging stigma, c) disclosing one’s lived experience, and d) advocacy work. Discussion: Findings present a more nuanced conceptualization of resisting stigma, grounded in the experiences of people with SMI. Interventions should consider focusing on personal stigma resistance early on and increasing the incorporation of peers into services. STUDY 2: Background: Despite strong links between stigma resistance and recovery outcomes, limitations of existing measures of stigma resistance have contributed to this construct remaining largely under-studied. This study sought to develop and validate an improved measure of mental illness stigma resistance, grounded in the perspectives of people with lived experience. Method: An item pool was developed from qualitative interviews (Study 1) and items were piloted in an online MTurk sample with people self-reporting a mental illness diagnosis (n=489). Best performing items were selected and preliminary factor structure was examined using exploratory factor analysis in a subset of the sample (30%, n=161). The new measure was then administered to individuals at two state mental health consumer recovery conferences (n=202) and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to assess factor structure and refine the measure. Validity of the new scale was then examined through correlations with theoretically relevant measures. Results: The EFA suggested possible models of either 1, 3, or 5 factors. CFA demonstrated that the 5-factor model best fit the remaining MTurk data (n=328) and this was replicated in the conference sample; these samples were then combined to refine the measure across a heterogeneous sample (n=530). The final 20-item measure demonstrated good internal consistency for the total score (.93) and each of the 5 subscales (.71 - .88), good test-retest reliability (.74), and strong construct validity. Discussion: This study produced an improved measure of stigma resistance with strong psychometric properties and construct validity. Use of this new measure will allow for a more nuanced assessment of stigma resistance across important domains of recovery