Key result
The State-Trait Hopelessness Scale demonstrates strong reliability supporting its use in clinical settings.
Why the study?
Common hopelessness measures fail to differentiate state from trait hopelessness, which is important for treatment in patients with coronary heart disease.
The State-Trait Hopelessness Scale is a reliable and valid tool for differentiating temporary from chronic hopelessness in patients with coronary heart disease.
STHS may enable targeted state-hopelessness interventions post-CHD; leaves open validation and clinical utility in patient populations.
Hopelessness is predictive in the development of coronary heart disease (CHD) and can persist in patients after a CHD event, adversely affecting recovery. Hopelessness may represent a temporary response (state) or a chronic outlook (trait). Common hopelessness measures fail to differentiate state from trait hopelessness, a potentially important differentiation for treatment. The State-Trait Hopelessness Scale (STHS) was developed and pilot tested with two groups of college students (n = 39 and 190) and patients with CHD (n = 44). The instrument was then used with 520 patients, confirming reliability (Cronbach's α) for the State (.88) and Trait (.91) subscales and concurrent and predictive validity. Separate exploratory factor analyses showed two factors (hopelessness present or hopelessness absent) for the State and Trait subscales, accounting for 58.9% and 57.3% of variance, respectively. These findings support future use of the tool in clinical settings and in intervention studies focused on hopelessness.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dunn et al. (2013) studied Coronary heart disease (n=793). State-Trait Hopelessness Scale (STHS) was evaluated on Reliability (Cronbach's α) and validity of the State and Trait subscales. The State-Trait Hopelessness Scale demonstrated strong reliability, with Cronbach's α of .88 for the State subscale and .91 for the Trait subscale, supporting its use in clinical settings.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: