Both perceived personal discrimination and perceived group discrimination were measured. The mean average score (calculated by dividing the mean score by the number of items) for perceived personal discrimination was 5.10 (SD = 1.88).
The mean average score for perceived group discrimination was 5.98 (SD = 1.42). There was a strong positive correlation between perceived personal and group discrimination, r = .56, n = 185, p < .001 with high levels of perceived personal discrimination associated with high levels of perceived group discrimination.
3.3.2 Social identity.
Two separate social identities were measured; identification with other homeless people and identification with family members. Table 3 reports the summary statistics and correlations for the five components of the measure. Length of time homeless is also reported to examine its relationship with identifying as homeless. All components were significantly positively correlated with one another. Only individual self-stereotyping was significantly associated with duration spent homeless, with an increase in duration associated with increased self-stereotyping.
55
Table 3: Descriptive statistics and correlations for the five homeless identity components and
their relationship to length of time homeless
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
1. Solidarity component - .39*** .32*** .36*** .22** .07
2. Satisfaction component - .61*** .44*** .40*** -.07
3. Centrality component - .56*** .40*** .02
4. Individual self-stereotyping component - .54*** .18*
5. In-group homogeneity component - -.05
6. Length of time homeless -
Mean 4.99 3.39 3.80 4.34 4.70 3.26 †
SD 1.43 1.79 1.83 1.85 1.82 4.16 †
NOTE: * significance at p ≤ .05, ** significance at p ≤ .01, *** significance at p ≤ .001, † years
The mean average score for identity with family was 4.15 (SD = 0.77). Identity with family was significantly negatively associated with duration spent homeless, r = -.21, n = 186, p = .005 with longer durations homeless associated with lower scores for family identity.
3.3.3 Perceived social support.
Table 4 reports the summary statistics for perceived social support. Only a very small proportion of participants said they had family who were homeless, slightly less than a fifth said they had a special person in their lives who was homeless, the majority of participants said they had friends who were homeless and nearly all participants reported that they had non-homeless family. Perceived support from a special person and from homeless family were omitted from all further analyses owing to the small number of participants who reported the availability of these sources of support.
Table 4: Descriptive statistics for perceived support from both homeless and non-homeless
sources
Homeless sources Non-homeless
sources
Special person Friends Family Family
Mean (SD) 6.52 (0.73) 5.09 (1.52) 4.32 (2.07) 3.99 (2.24)
56
3.3.4 Coping options.
Two different measures were used to assess coping options. Table 5 reports the summary statistics for both measures. Thecoping option scale measures the appraisal of both problem and emotion-focused coping at the individual, intragroup and intergroup level. Individual mobility as a coping option was also measured. Individual mobility was significantly correlated with only the individual problem-focused coping subscale. This measure was not included in any further analyses to ensure that it did not cancel out any effects associated with the individual problem-focused coping subscale, which can occur as multiple mediation models only quantify the unique association between mediators and outcome variables (Hayes, 2013).
Table 5: Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for the individual mobility scale and
the six subscales of the coping option scale
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
1. Individual emotion-focused coping - .16* .17* .10 .34*** .17* .01
2. Individual problem-focused coping - .25*** .12 .03 .20** .22**
3. Intragroup emotion-focused coping - .69*** .22** .54*** .03
4. Intragroup problem-focused coping - .39*** .49*** -.03
5. Intergroup emotion-focused coping - .45*** -.02
6. Intergroup problem-focused coping - .07
7. Individual mobility measure -
Mean 5.08 4.88 5.09 4.87 4.71 5.23 4.37
SD 1.59 1.44 1.60 1.49 1.58 1.43 0.70
NOTE: * significance at p ≤ .05, ** significance at p ≤ .01, *** significance at p ≤ .001
3.3.5 Psychological outcome measures.
Three variables were employed to assess psychological outcomes. These were self- esteem, perceived stress and psychological distress,. Table 6 reports the summary statistics as well as their correlation coefficients. The measures were significantly correlated with one another, with lower scores for self-esteem associated with increased scores for perceived stress and psychological distress. Increased scores for perceived stress were also associated with increased scores for psychological distress.
57
No normative data are available for the measure of self-esteem or perceived stress and therefore it is not possible to interpret the scores. In contrast, the BSI-18 was designed to be interpreted at three distinct but related levels. These are the global level, measured by the GSI, which measures the respondent’s current level of psychological distress, the dimensional level which provides information on psychological distress associated with somatisation, depression or anxiety and the discrete symptom level.
Table 6: Descriptive statistics and correlation coefficients for self-esteem, perceived stress
and psychological distress
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 1. Self-esteem - -.62*** -.73*** -.58*** -.42*** -.64*** 2. Perceived stress - .69*** .64*** .54*** .69*** 3. Depression subscale - .79*** .70*** .90*** 4. Anxiety subscale - .77*** .94*** 5. Somatisation subscale - .89***
6. Global severity Index -
Mean 3.95 24.27 10.76 10.40 7.41 28.57
SD 2.43 8.23 6.72 7.08 6.38 18.37
NOTE: * significance at p ≤ .05, ** significance at p ≤ .01, *** significance at p ≤ .001
To determine the clinical range for the BSI-18, the raw scores were transformed based on community norms for 1,134 adult Americans. Community norms for British adults have not yet been published. Derogatis (2001) suggests that participants with a transformed total GSI score of 63 or higher, or participants with any two transformed subscale scores of 63 or higher, should be considered to be in the clinical range. Following these guidelines, 62% of the sample fell into the clinical range. At the discrete symptom level, 59 participants (31%) reported having thoughts of ending their life in the past week. Table 7 summarises the number and percentage of participants falling into the clinical range for both the GSI and each dimension level.
58
Table 7: Number of participants in clinical range for overall distress and three dimensions of
the BSI-18
BSI-18 Scale Number of
participants %
GSI (or scored in clinical range on two of three subscales) 117 62.23
Depression subscale 129 68.62
Anxiety subscale 116 61.70
Somatisation subscale 96 51.06