Quantitative assessment shows the Folk Healing Perception Scale is valid and reliable for Filipino health perceptions, suggesting a pathway for integration into healthcare.
The increasing need for a standardized tool to assess perception of folk healing presents a gap in culturally appropriate health research, especially in Filipino communities where traditional healing practices remain widely used. This study aimed to develop and validate the Folk Healing Perception Scale (FHPS), a researcher-made questionnaire designed to measure beliefs, attitudes, and perceptions of folk healing. A quantitative psychometric design was utilized. The scale was constructed through a literature review and consisted of 11 items rated on a 4-point Likert scale (Strongly Agree to Disagree Strongly). It was administered to 500 purposely selected respondents aged 40 and above from Barangay Linao, Ormoc City, Leyte, Philippines, who had direct knowledge or experience of folk healing. The reliability of the scale was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha, yielding a value of 0.82 with a 95% confidence interval of 0.79 to 0.85, indicating high internal consistency. Item-rest correlation values ranged from 0.32 to 0.58, showing that all items contributed positively to the overall scale. No item, if removed, significantly affected the scale’s reliability. The findings show that the FHPS is a reliable and valid instrument for assessing folk healing perceptions and may be helpful in future research, community health assessments, and culturally responsive healthcare planning. Highlighting the implications of these findings, the development of FHPS contributes to the theoretical understanding of health belief systems rooted in culture, while also providing practitioners and policymakers with a concrete, validated tool to integrate traditional health perspectives into contemporary healthcare models. This supports the advancement of culturally sensitive practices in both academic research and applied public health settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Flandez et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: