ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2026
Psychometric Properties of the Turkish Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to adapt the Medical Maximizer-Minimizer Scale (MMS) into Turkish and evaluate its psychometric properties, including factorial structure, reliability, measurement invariance, and construct validity in the Turkish healthcare context. Patients and Methods: A total of 511 Turkish adults completed the Turkish MMS alongside measures of healthcare trust, utilization patterns, and health-related quality of life. The sample was divided into exploratory (n = 256) and confirmatory (n = 255) subsamples using propensity score matching. Classical item analysis, exploratory graph analysis (EGA), exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to examine dimensional structure. Five competing structural models were compared, followed by measurement invariance testing across demographic groups. Convergent and discriminant validity were evaluated through correlations with related constructs. Results: Item analysis and EGA revealed that Item 5 demonstrated poor psychometric properties and was excluded, yielding a nine-item scale. EGA identified a stable two-dimensional structure with high bootstrap stability coefficients (0.946-1.000). The nine-item scale demonstrated good internal consistency (α =0.78, 95% CI [0.74,0.82]). Among five competing models, the bifactor model provided superior fit (CFI =0.997, TLI =0.993, RMSEA =0.021, SRMR =0.025), identifying a general maximizing-minimizing factor alongside two specific dimensions: Generalist View (philosophical orientations toward medical intervention) and Individualist View (concrete healthcare-seeking preferences). Scalar measurement invariance was supported across gender, age, marital status, parental status, and social security status. The scale showed theoretically consistent correlations with healthcare trust (r =0.15-0.25) and utilization intentions (r =0.09-0.29), but minimal associations with health-related quality of life, confirming discriminant validity. Conclusion: The nine-item Turkish MMS demonstrates robust psychometric properties with a bifactor structure capturing both general and dimension-specific healthcare orientations. The validated instrument provides a reliable tool for assessing maximizing-minimizing tendencies in Turkish populations and offers a foundation for future research on healthcare utilization and patient-centered communication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.