Measuring Moral Injury: Further Validation of the MIES-C and EMIS-C in a Civilian Population

Morriss, M; Berle, D

Measuring Moral Injury: Further Validation of the MIES-C and EMIS-C in a Civilian Population

Morriss, M Berle, D

Permalink

Publisher:: SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 2023
Issue Date:: 2023-01-01

Open Access

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Open Access

This item is open access.

Adobe PDF

Download Published versionAdobe PDF (1.51 MB)

View on publisher's site

View statistics

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Morriss, M
dc.contributor.author	Berle, D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4861-2220
dc.date.accessioned	2023-11-13T01:21:49Z
dc.date.available	2023-11-13T01:21:49Z
dc.date.issued	2023-01-01
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 2023
dc.identifier.issn	0882-2689
dc.identifier.issn	1573-3505
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173361
dc.description.abstract	Moral injury among civilians has garnered increased recognition in recent years. However, most moral injury measures have focused on military experiences, with language being military specific. This study aimed to further validate two self-report measures of civilian moral injury, the Moral Injury Events Scale - Civilian (MIES-C) and Expressions of Moral Injury Scale - Civilian (EMIS-C). Participants were 312 adults (99 males, 212 females, Mage = 37.24) who completed the MIES-C, EMIS-C, and a battery of associated measures on two occasions. For the MIES-C, four Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) models were examined. A three-factor model, with covaried items, provided the best fit to the data. For the EMIS-C, three CFAs were examined. A two-factor model, with covaried items, and the bi-factor model provided the best fit to the data, with the two-factor model being preferred for reasons of parsimony and its absence of weak and negative item loadings. Both measures demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability and convergent validity with associated measures of psychological distress. This study provides psychometrically sound tools for clinicians and researchers of civilian moral injury.
dc.language	English
dc.publisher	SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1007/s10862-023-10071-7
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subject	1701 Psychology, 1702 Cognitive Sciences
dc.subject.classification	Clinical Psychology
dc.subject.classification	5201 Applied and developmental psychology
dc.subject.classification	5203 Clinical and health psychology
dc.subject.classification	5205 Social and personality psychology
dc.title	Measuring Moral Injury: Further Validation of the MIES-C and EMIS-C in a Civilian Population
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.for	1701 Psychology
utslib.for	1702 Cognitive Sciences
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	open_access	*
dc.date.updated	2023-11-13T01:21:47Z
pubs.publication-status	Published

Abstract:

Moral injury among civilians has garnered increased recognition in recent years. However, most moral injury measures have focused on military experiences, with language being military specific. This study aimed to further validate two self-report measures of civilian moral injury, the Moral Injury Events Scale - Civilian (MIES-C) and Expressions of Moral Injury Scale - Civilian (EMIS-C). Participants were 312 adults (99 males, 212 females, Mage = 37.24) who completed the MIES-C, EMIS-C, and a battery of associated measures on two occasions. For the MIES-C, four Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) models were examined. A three-factor model, with covaried items, provided the best fit to the data. For the EMIS-C, three CFAs were examined. A two-factor model, with covaried items, and the bi-factor model provided the best fit to the data, with the two-factor model being preferred for reasons of parsimony and its absence of weak and negative item loadings. Both measures demonstrated acceptable test-retest reliability and convergent validity with associated measures of psychological distress. This study provides psychometrically sound tools for clinicians and researchers of civilian moral injury.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/173361