Cross-sectional study confirms the psychometric characteristics of a Persian scale measuring post-migration stress in refugees, suggesting reliability for clinical use.
Background Refugees usually face stressful events both in the destination country and during migration. To date, no tool has been designed to reflect the post-migration stress of Persian-speaking refugees on the basis of their current life conditions. Therefore, this study was conducted to determine the psychometric characteristics of the Persian version of the Refugee Post-migration Stress Scale (RPMS). Methodology This cross-sectional study was conducted in 2022 with 355 Iranian refugees in Turkey. The original RPMS includes 21 items and 7 subscales. First, the original version of the tool was translated into Farsi via the standard forward-backward method. The instrument’s validity was checked through face validity, content validity, and construct validity via confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and convergent validity with the World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Index ( WHO-5) and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist 25 (HSCL-25(. Reliability was evaluated via the internal consistency method (Cronbach’s alpha). SPSS version 16 and LISREL version 8.8 software packages were used for data analysis. Results Face validity and content validity were confirmed by refugees and experts with slight changes. CFA revealed that the proposed 7-subscale model of the original RPMS has a good fit (RMSEA: 0.08, NFI: 0.92; CFI: 0.95; IFI: 0.95; GFI 0.86; SRMR: 0.06). The convergent validity results also showed that the studied instrument has a suitable structure. Convergent validity was confirmed via the Pearson correlation results between the RPMS and two instruments: the HSCL-25 ( p < 0.001, r = 0.33) and the WHO-5 ( p < 0.001, r = -0.30). Additionally, the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.88. Conclusion According to the psychometric results of the tool in the Persian-speaking refugee population, the tool is appropriate for measuring post-migration stress in refugees. Another advantage of this tool is its brevity and shortness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khaki et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: