International Journal of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 24, Issue 1, pp 54–65 | Cite as

Psychometric Properties and Normative Data for a Swedish Version of the Modern Health Worries Scale

  • Eva PalmquistEmail author
  • Keith J. Petrie
  • Steven Nordin



The modern health worries (MHW) scale was developed to assess individuals’ worries about aspects of modernity and technology affecting personal health. The aim of this study was to psychometrically evaluate a Swedish version of the MHW scale and to provide Swedish normative data.


Data were collected as part of the Västerbotten Environmental Health Study, which has a random sample of 3406 Swedish adults (18–79 years).


The Swedish version of the MHW scale showed excellent internal consistency and satisfactory convergent validity. A four-factor structure consistent with the original version was confirmed. The model showed invariance across age and sex. A slightly positively skewed and platykurtic distribution was found. Normative data for the general population and for combinations of specific age groups (young, middle aged, and elderly) and sex are presented.


The psychometric properties of the Swedish version of the MHW scale suggest that use of this instrument is appropriate for assessing worries about modernity in Swedish-speaking and similar populations. The scale now has the advantage of good normative data being available. MHW may hold importance for understanding and predicting the development of functional disorders, such as idiopathic environmental intolerance and other medically unexplained conditions.


Modern health worries scale Sweden Environmental illness Reliability Validity Psychometrics 



This study was supported by grants from the Swedish Research Council for Health, Working Life and Welfare (2011-0396), the Graduate School in Population Dynamics and Public Policy, Umeå University, Center for Environmental Research, Umeå, and the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences (M14-0375:1).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki Declaration and approved by the Umeå Regional Ethics Board (Dnr 09-171M).

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Andersen JH, Jensen JC. Modern health worries and visits to the general practitioner in a general population sample: an 18month follow-up study. J Psychosom Res. 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2012.07.007.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bailer J, Witthöft M, Rist F. Modern health worries and idiopathic environmental intolerance. J Psychosom Res. 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.05.006.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guildford Press; 2006.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chen MF. The mediating role of subjective health complaints on willingness to use selected functional foods. Food Qual Prefer. 2011. doi: 10.1016/j.foodqual.2010.08.006.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheung GW, Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Model A Multidiscip J. 2002. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Devcich DA, Pedersen IK, Petrie KJ. You eat what you are: modern health worries and the acceptance of natural and synthetic additives in functional foods. Appetite. 2007. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2006.09.014.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    European Federation of Psychologists’ Associations. EFPA review model for the description and evaluation of psychological and educational tests: test review form and notes for reviewers Version 4.2.6. 2013.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Filipkowski KB, Smyth JM, Rutchick AM, Santuzzi AM, Adya M, Petrie KJ, et al. Do healthy people worry? Modern health worries, subjective health complaints, perceived health, and health care utilization. Int J Behav Med. 2010. doi: 10.1007/s12529-009-9058-0.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Floyd FJ, Widaman KF. Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychol Assess. 1995. doi: 10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Flynn J, Slovic P, Mertz CK. Gender, race, and perception of environmental health risks. Risk Anal. 1994. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00082.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fujita F, Diener E, Sandvik E. Gender differences in negative affect and well-being: the case for emotional intensity. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1991. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.61.3.427.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Furnham A. Are modern health worries, personality and attitudes to science associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicine? Br J Health Psychol. 2007. doi: 10.1348/135910706X100593.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Höfler M, Pfister H, Lieb R, Wittchen H-U. The use of weights to account for non-response and drop-out. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2005. doi: 10.1007/s00127-005-0882-5.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Indregard A-MR, Ihlebæk CM, Eriksen HR. Modern health worries, subjective health complaints, health care utilization, and sick leave in the Norwegian working population. Int J Behav Med. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s12529-012-9246-1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaptein AA, Helder DI, Kleijn WC, Rief W, Moss-Morris R, Petrie KJ. Modern health worries in medical students. J Psychosom Res. 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2004.12.001.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Keller C, Bostrom A, Kuttschreuter M, Savadori L, Spence A, White M. Bringing appraisal theory to environmental risk perception: a review of conceptual approaches of the past 40 years and suggestions for future research. J Risk Res. 2012. doi: 10.1080/13669877.2011.634523.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Köteles F, Simor P. Modern health worries, somatosensory amplification and subjective symptoms: a longitudinal study. Int J Behav Med. 2013. doi: 10.1007/s12529-011-9217-y.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Köteles F, Szemerszky R, Freyler A, Bárdos G. Somatosensory amplification as a possible source of subjective symptoms behind modern health worries. Scand J Psychol. 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2010.00846.x.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Köteles F, Bárány E, Varsányi P, Bárdos G. Are modern health worries associated with somatosensory amplification, environmental attribution style, and commitment to complementary and alternative medicine? Scand J Psychol. 2012. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9450.2011.00908.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Köteles F, Szemerszky R, Gubányi M, Körmendi J, Szekrényesi C, Lloyd R, et al. Idiopathic environmental intolerance attributed to electromagnetic fields (IEI-EMF) and electrosensibility (ES)—are they connected? Int J Hyg Environ Health. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.ijheh.2012.05.007.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Köteles F, Freyler A, Kökönyei G, Bárdos G. Family background of modern health worries, somatosensory amplification, and health anxiety: a questionnaire study. J Health Psychol. 2014. doi: 10.1177/1359105313516661.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lind R, Arslan G, Eriksen HR, Kahrs G, Haug TT, Florvaag E, et al. Subjective health complaints and modern health worries in patients with subjective food hypersensitivity. Dig Dis Sci. 2005. doi: 10.1007/s10620-005-2767-6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nordin S, Palmquist E, Claeson A-S. The environmental symptom-attribution scale: metric properties and normative data. J Enviro Psychol. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2013.06.006.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Olofsson A, Rashid S. The white (male) effect and risk perception: can equality make a difference? Risk Anal. 2011. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2010.01566.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ozakinci G, Boratav HB, Mora PA. Modern health worries, health care utilization, and symptom reporting: a cross-cultural comparison. Behav Med. 2011. doi: 10.1080/08964289.2011.552925.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Petrie KJ, Wessely S. Modern worries, new technology, and medicine: new technologies mean new health complaints. BMJ. 2002. doi: 10.1136/bmj.324.7339.690.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petrie KJ, Sivertsen B, Hysing M, Broadbent E, Moss-Morris R, Eriksen HR, et al. Thoroughly modern worries: the relationship of worries about modernity to reported symptoms, health and medical care utilization. J Psychosom Res. 2001;51(1):395–401.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Petrie KJ, Broadbent EA, Kley N, Moss-Morris R, Horne R, Rief W. Worries about modernity predict symptom complaints after environmental pesticide spraying. Psychosom Med. 2005. doi: 10.1097/01.psy.0000181277.48575.a4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Petrie KJ, Faasse K, Crichton F, Grey A. How common are symptoms? Evidence from a New Zealand national telephone survey. BMJ Open. 2014. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005374.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Platt RW, Harper SB. Survey data with sampling weights: is there a ‘best’ approach? Environ Res. 2013. doi: 10.1016/j.envres.2012.08.006.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Regeringens proposition 2007/08:44. Vissa etikprövningsfrågor m.m. 2007. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
  32. 32.
    Rief W, Glaesmer H, Baehr V, Broadbent E, Brähler E, Petrie KJ. The relationship of modern health worries to depression, symptom reporting and quality of life in a general population survey. J Psychosom Res. 2012. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.11.017.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Rubin GJ, Burns M, Wessely S. Possible psychological mechanisms for ‘wind turbine syndrome’. On the windmills of your mind. Noise Health. 2014. doi: 10.4103/1463-1741.132099.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Schermelleh-Engel K, Moosbrugger H, Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods Psychol Res. 2003. doi: 10.1002/0470010940.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Seitz H, Stinner D, Eikmann T, Herr C, Röösli M. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity (EHS) and subjective health complaints associated with electromagnetic fields of mobile phone communication—a literature review published between 2000 and 2004. Sci Total Environ. 2005. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2005.05.009.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Slimak MW, Dietz T. Personal values, beliefs, and ecological risk perception. Risk Anal. 2006. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2006.00832.x.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Spangenberg L, Zenger M, Rief W, Braehler E, Glaesmer H. Assessing modern health worries: dimensionality and factorial invariance across age and sex of the modern health worries scale in a general population sample. J Health Psychol. 2013. doi: 10.1177/1359105313488980.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Statistics Sweden. Tables of Sweden’s population 2009: 1.3.1 Population by sex, age, marital status by county Dec. 31, 2009 according to the administrative subdivisions of January 1, 2010. 2010. Accessed 19 Jan 2015.
  39. 39.
    Szemerszky R, Gubányi M, Árvai D, Dömötör Z, Köteles F. Is there a connection between electrosensitivity and electrosensibility? A replication study. Int J Behav Med. 2015. doi: 10.1007/s12529-015-9477-z.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. Boston: Pearson Education, Limited; 2007.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Turner J, Overland J. Contrasting climate change in the two polar regions. Polar Res. 2009. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-8369.2009.00128.x.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    WHO. Electromagnetic hypersensitivity. In: Hansson Mild K, Repacholi M, van Deventer E, Ravazzani P, editors. Proceedings, international workshop on electromagnetic field hypersensitivity, Prague, Czech Republic, October 25–27, 2004. Milan: World Health Organization; 2006.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© International Society of Behavioral Medicine 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUmeå UniversityUmeåSweden
  2. 2.Department of Psychological MedicineUniversity of AucklandAucklandNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations