Table 3.
Inter-item tetrachoric correlations (rtc), item-to-total polyserial correlations (rbs) and Cronbach's alphas (α) for each social inclusion domain
| α | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Housing and neighbourhood (HN) | rtc | rtc | rtc | rtc | rps | 0.929 |
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | HN total score | ||
| Stable housing (1) | 1.000 | 0.747 | ||||
| House lackinga (2) | 0.896 | 1.000 | 0.795 | |||
| Location not likea (3) | 0.833 | 0.693 | 1.000 | 0.883 | ||
| Neighborhood lackinga (4) | 0.877 | 0.570 | 0.722 | 1.000 | 0.821 | |
| Social participation, relationships and limitations (SOC) | 0.854 | |||||
| (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | SOC total score | ||
| Good friends (5) | 1.000 | 0.814 | ||||
| Don't enjoya (6) | 0.598 | 1.000 | 0.854 | |||
| Not participated longa (7) | 0.671 | 0.705 | 1.000 | 0.877 | ||
| Stigmaa (8) | 0.399 | 0.572 | 0.615 | 1.000 | 0.788 | |
| Employment and education (EE) | 0.877 | |||||
| (9) | (10) | (11) | (12) | EE total score | ||
| Work/study (9) | 1.000 | 0.810 | ||||
| Good conditions (10) | 0.999b | 1.000 | 0.861 | |||
| Discriminationa (11) | 0.449 | 0.589 | 1.000 | 0.835 | ||
| Impaired abilitya (12) | 0.427 | 0.530 | 0.853 | 1.000 | 0.854 | |
| Finances (FIN) | 0.918 | |||||
| (13) | (14) | (15) | (16) | FIN total score | ||
| Cover basic costs (13) | 1.000 | 0.797 | ||||
| Unable participatea (14) | 0.660 | 1.000 | 0.888 | |||
| Unable attend eventsa (15) | 0.620 | 0.857 | 1.000 | 0.871 | ||
| Lack savingsa (16) | 0.709 | 0.813 | 0.767 | 1.000 | 0.883 | |
rpc, tetrachoric correlation coefficient; rps, polyserial correlation coefficient; α, Cronbach's alpha.
a
Reverse scored.
b
High correlation here is related to these being nested questions, a high proportion of participants working suggested that they were working in a good condition.