Language Matters: Using Positive Measures in Survey Research Makes a Difference

Background and Purpose: Few validated measures exist for assessing community attitudes toward individuals experiencing homelessness [IEH], and these scales often have problems with reliability (Walters et al., 2021). One validated measure used most commonly in attitudes research is the Link et al. (1994), which assesses empathy as a willingness to help IEH. While this scale is shown to have good internal consistency, it phrases empathy in a negative light. This study aimed to assess differences in responses between the original Link et al. (1994) measure and a new, inverse measure that positively words the experiences of IEH.

Methods: This exploratory, cross-sectional survey was distributed to participants throughout Utah. Sampling methods included online recruitment, door hanging, and flyer distribution in public areas. As this is an initial exploratory study, participants were either given the original scale or the new inverse scale. An example of an original scale item includes, “It is hard to understand how anyone becomes homeless,” with response options ranging from “Definitely False” to “Definitely True.” An example of the inverse of that item is, “There are many valid reasons for a person to become homeless,” with response options ranging from “Definitely False” to “Definitely True.” Responses from each scale were added to a total scale score so that differences between groups could be compared.

Results: Five hundred and seventy-three participants took the survey, with 277 taking the original measure and 296 taking the new measure. The Cronbach’s alpha for the original Link et al. (1994) measure was 0.89, indicating good reliability. The Cronbach’s alpha for the new inverse scale was 0.73, indicating acceptable reliability. The alpha for the total combined scale was 0.85. A Mann-Whitney U-Test showed that the 4.81 difference between group means was statistically significant (U=53378.50, p<0.001), indicating that those who received the more positively worded scale had a more positive view of IEH.

An exploratory factor analysis was run to assess further ways to improve the inverse scale. EFA, using principal axis factoring with Varimax rotation, extracted two interpretable factors explaining 38.1% of the variance. Several items, including those addressing systemic causes of homelessness, failed to load meaningfully onto either factor and were excluded from further analysis. Factor 1 reflected attitudes of trust, safety, and social inclusion toward PEH, while Factor 2 represented personal effort and humanization beliefs.

Implications: Word choice in scales matters, especially when working with vulnerable populations. This study gives promising insight into a new scale that can potentially address community attitudes toward IEH. Community attitudes are vital when thinking about the expansion of services for IEH, and communities can be leveraged as a source of support, regardless of their closeness to homelessness. Future research should consider a more robust confirmatory factor analysis to ensure appropriate measurement of the underlying constructs.