Individuals with visible differences due to medical conditions, such as systemic sclerosis (SSc; scleroderma), have reported difficulty navigating social situations because of issues such as staring, invasive questions, and rude comments. Fears or anxiety linked to situations in which a person interacts with others is known as social interaction anxiety. However, there exists no validated measurement tool to examine social interaction anxiety in rheumatologic conditions.
Methods:
The present study examines the reliability (internal consistency) and validity (structural and convergent) of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale-6 (SIAS-6) in a sample of 802 individuals with SSc, and compares these psychometric properties across limited and diffuse subtypes of the disease. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to examine the factor structure of the SIAS-6 in patients with both limited and diffuse SSc.
Results:
A one-factor structure was found to fit well for individuals with SSc with both limited and diffuse disease. The measure demonstrated strong internal consistency reliability and convergent validity with relevant measures in expected magnitudes and directions.
Conclusions:
The SIAS-6 is a psychometrically robust measure that can confidently be used in SSc populations to examine social interaction anxiety. Moreover, scores can meaningfully be compared between patients with limited and diffuse disease.
CashTFSmolakL.Understanding body images: historical and contemporary perspectives. In: CashTFSmolakL eds. Body image: a a handbook of science, practice, and prevention (2nd ed). New York (NY): Guilford Press2011;3-12. Available from: https://www.guilford.com/excerpts/cash2.pdf. Accessed Sep 24, 2017.
2.
RumseyNHarcourtD. Body image and disfigurement: issues and interventions. Body Image. 2004;1(1):83-97.
3.
RumseyN.Body image and congenital conditions with visible differences. In: CashTFPruzinskyT, eds. Body image: a handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York (NY): Guilford2002;226-233.
4.
RumseyN.Optimizing body image in disfiguring congenital conditions. In: CashTFPruzinskyT, eds. Body image: a handbook of theory, research, and clinical practice. New York (NY): Guilford2002;431-439.
5.
MattickRPClarkeJC.Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behav Res Ther. 1998;36(4):455-470.
6.
HeimbergRGMuellerGPHoltCSHopeDALiebowitzMR.Assessment of anxiety in social interaction and being observed by others: The Social Interaction Anxiety Scale and the Social Phobia Scale. Behav Ther. 1992;23(1):53-73.
7.
SafrenSATurkCLHeimbergRG.Factor structure of the social interaction anxiety scale and the social phobia scale. Behav Res Ther. 1998;36(4):443-453.
8.
PetersLSunderlandMAndrewsGRapeeRMMattickRP.Development of a short form Social Interaction Anxiety (SIAS) and Social Phobia Scale (SPS) using nonparametric item response theory: the SIAS-6 and the SPS-6. Psychol Assess. 2012;24(1):66-76.
9.
Benrud-LarsonLMHeinbergLJBolingCet al. Body image dissatisfaction among women with scleroderma: extent and relationship to psychosocial function. Health Psychol. 2003;22(2):130-139.
10.
KwakkenbosLDelisleVCFoxRSet al. Psychosocial aspects of scleroderma. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2015;41(3):519-528.
11.
MalcarneVLHandsdottirIGreenbergsHLClementsPJWeismanMH.Appearance self-esteem in systemic sclerosis. Cognit Ther Res. 1999;23(2):197-208.
12.
MalcarneVLFoxRSMillsSDGholizadehS.Psychosocial aspects of systemic sclerosis. Curr Opin Rheumatol. 2013;25(6):707-713.
13.
GabrielliAAvvedimentoEVKriegT.Scleroderma. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(19):1989-2003.
14.
SteenVDPowellDLMedsgerTAJr.Clinical correlations and prognosis based on serum autoantibodies in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum. 1988;31(2):196-203.
15.
JewettLRHudsonMMalcarneVLBaronMThombsBD; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Sociodemographic and disease correlates of body image distress among patients with systemic sclerosis. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e33281.
16.
MillsSDFoxRSMerzELet al. Evaluation of the satisfaction with appearance scale and its short form in systemic sclerosis: analysis from the UCLA scleroderma quality of life study. J Rheumatol. 2015;42(9):1624-1630.
17.
JoachimGAcornS.Life with a rare chronic disease: the scleroderma experience. J Adv Nurs. 2003;42(6):598-606.
18.
ThombsBDvan LankveldWBasselMet al. Psychological health and well-being in systemic sclerosis: State of the science and consensus research agenda. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(8):1181-1189.
19.
HartTAFloraDBPalyoSAFrescoDMHolleCHeimbergRG.Development and examination of the social appearance anxiety scale. Assessment. 2008;15(1):48-59.
20.
CohenJ.Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1998.
21.
van den HoogenFKhannaDFransenJet al. 2013 classification criteria for systemic sclerosis: an American College of Rheumatology/European League against Rheumatism collaborative initiative. Arthritis Rheum. 2013;65(11):2737-2747.
22.
CarletonRNMcCrearyDRNortonPJAsmundsonGJ.Brief fear of negative evaluation scale-revised. Depress Anxiety. 2006;23(5):297-303.
23.
CarletonRNCollimoreKCAsmundsonGJ.Social anxiety and fear of negative evaluation: construct validity of the BFNE-II. J Anxiety Disord. 2007;21(1):131-141.
24.
LawrenceJWHeinbergLJRocaRMunsterASpenceRFauerbachJA.Development and validation of the Satisfaction with Appearance Scale: assessing body image among burn injured patients. Psychol Assess. 1998;10(1):64-70.
25.
JewettLRHudsonMHaythornthwaiteJAet al. Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Development and validation of the brief-satisfaction with appearance scale for systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2010;62(12):1779-1786.
26.
KroenkeKSpitzerRL.The PHQ-9: a new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatr Ann. 2002;32(9):509-515.
27.
RazykovIHudsonMBaronMThombsBD; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Utility of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 to assess suicide risk in patients with systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013;65(5):753-758.
28.
MiletteKHudsonMBaronMThombsBD; Canadian Scleroderma Research Group. Comparison of the PHQ-9 and CES-D depression scales in systemic sclerosis: internal consistency reliability, convergent validity and clinical correlates. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(4):789-796.
29.
ClementsPJHurwitzELWongWKet al. Skin thickness score as a predictor and correlate of outcome in systemic sclerosis: high-dose versus low-dose penicillamine trial. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43(11):2445-2454.
30.
ClementsPJLachenbruchPANgSCSimmonsMSterzMFurstDE.Skin score. A semiquantitative measure of cutaneous involvement that improves prediction of prognosis in systemic sclerosis. Arthritis Rheum. 1990;33(8):1256-1263.
31.
DimitrovDM.Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2010;43(2):121-149.
32.
VandenbergRJLanceCE.A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organ Res Methods. 2000;3(1):4-69.
33.
BentlerPM.Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1990;107(2):238-246.
34.
SteigerJH.Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behav Res. 1990;25(2):173-180.
35.
HuLTBentlerPM.Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct Equ Modeling. 1999;6(1):1-55.
36.
SatorraABentlerPM.A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika. 2001;66(4):507-514.
37.
GerbingDWAndersonJC. Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In: BollenKALongJS, eds. Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park: Sage1993;40-65.
38.
ChenFF.Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling. 2007;14(3):464-504.
39.
SatorraA.Scaled and adjusted restricted tests in multi-sample analysis of moment structures. In: HeijmansRDHPollcokDSGSatorraA eds. Innovations in multivariate statistical analysis: a festschrift for Heinz Neudecker. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publishers. 2000;Ch 17:233-247.
WolfEJHarringtonKMClarkSLMillerMW.Sample size requirements for structural equation models an evaluation of power, bias, and solution propriety. Educ Psychol Meas. 2013;76(6):913-934.
42.
SchönbrodtFDPeruginiM.At what sample size do correlations stabilize?J Res Pers. 2013;47(5):609-612.
43.
BollenKA.Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley; 1989.
44.
Le BlancALBruceLCHeimbergRGet al. Evaluation of the psychometric properties of two short forms of the social interaction anxiety scale and the social phobia scale. Assessment. 2014;21(3):312-323.
45.
PuckettJALevittHMHorneSGHayes-SkeltonSA.Internalized heterosexism and psychological distress: the mediating roles of self-criticism and community connectedness. Psychol Sex Orientat Gend Divers. 2015;2(4):426-435.
46.
GündelHWolfAXidaraVBuschRCeballos-BaumannAO.Social phobia in spasmodic torticollis. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2001;71(4):499-504.
47.
BarnetteJJ. Effects of stem and Likert response option reversals on survey internal consistency: If you feel the need, there is a better alternative to using those negatively worded stems. Educ Psychol Meas. 2000;60(3):361-370.
