A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Moral Injury Outcome Measures

Abstract

Purpose of Review: As evidence accumulates for the pernicious effects of exposure to potentially morally injurious events (PMIEs) on mental health, the need for improved measurement of moral injury has grown. This article summarizes the psychometric properties of scales that assess cognitive, emotional, social, and spiritual concerns linked to PMIE exposure and uses meta-analysis to describe associations between these scales and measures of posttraumatic stress and depression. Findings: We reviewed 104 articles reporting results from 110 samples, in which 13 different scales were administered to assess the impacts of PMIE exposure (i.e., moral injury). Overall, the scales exhibited good to excellent internal consistency and moderate to large bivariate associations with posttraumatic stress (r =.63, 95% Confidence Interval [CI] [.55,.71]) and depression (r =.59, 95% CI [.51,.66]). Measures varied as to whether they indexed problems to a specific event, had a unidimensional or multidimensional factor structure, used a unipolar or bipolar response format to record item responses, used a cut score to distinguish moral injury from normative distress, were assessed for sensitivity to change over time, and were validated for use with multiple at-risk populations. Summary: Assessment of moral injury has progressed tremendously. Recent scales extend prior work that focused on whether respondents endorsed PMIE exposure by measuring the potential impacts of an exposure. Mental health clinicians and researchers can use this article to choose a scale that best fits their moral injury measurement needs.