Search

This study evaluated the dimensionality, invariance, and reliability of the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale–21 (DASS-21) within and across Brazil, Canada, Hong Kong, Romania, Taiwan, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and the United States (N = 2,580) in college student samples. We used confirmatory factor analyses to compare the fit of four different factor structures of the DASS-21: a unidimensional model, a three-correlated-factors model, a higher order model, and a bifactor model. The bifactor model, with three specific factors (depression, anxiety, and stress) and one general factor (general distress), presented the best fit within each country. We also calculated ancillary bifactor indices of model-based dimensionality of the DASS-21 and model-based reliability to further examine the validity of the composite total and subscale scores and the use of unidimensional modeling. Results suggested the DASS-21 can be used as a unidimensional scale. Finally, measurement invariance of the best fitting model was tested across countries indicating configural invariance. The traditional three-correlated-factors model presented scalar invariance across Canada, Hong Kong, Romania, Taiwan, and the United States. Overall, these analyses indicate that the DASS-21 would best be used as a general score of distress rather than three separate factors of depression, anxiety, and stress, in the countries studied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the most frequently used tool for measuring empathy, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is often scored by researchers arbitrarily and casually. Many commonly used IRI scoring approaches and their corresponding measurement models are unverified, which may make the conclusions of subsequent variable relation studies controversial and even misleading. We make the first effort to summarize these measurement models and to evaluate rationality of the common scoring methods of the IRI by confirmatory factor analysis, focusing on model fitting, factor loading, and model-based reliability simultaneously. The results show that most of these models do not fit well, indicating that the scoring approaches of the IRI corresponding to these models may be problematic. Relatively speaking, better scoring approaches of the IRI include summing empathic concern (EC) and perspective taking (PT) as the total score of the IRI and reporting the score of PT as cognitive empathy.

As the most frequently used tool for measuring empathy, the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) is often scored by researchers arbitrarily and casually. Many commonly used IRI scoring approaches and their corresponding measurement models are unverified, which may make the conclusions of subsequent variable relation studies controversial and even misleading. We make the first effort to summarize these measurement models and to evaluate rationality of the common scoring methods of the IRI by confirmatory factor analysis, focusing on model fitting, factor loading, and model-based reliability simultaneously. The results show that most of these models do not fit well, indicating that the scoring approaches of the IRI corresponding to these models may be problematic. Relatively speaking, better scoring approaches of the IRI include summing empathic concern (EC) and perspective taking (PT) as the total score of the IRI and reporting the score of PT as cognitive empathy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A multi-site study across five hospitals in Australia, undertaken as part of the study to evaluate the validity and reliability of the Patient Reported Outcome Measure of spiritual care (PROM) scale. Two hundred and eighty-one patients participated in the study. Data were analysed using AMOS (version 24) to assess the validity and reliability of the PROM using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Predictive (criterion) validity of the scale was also assessed by evaluating the relationship of the PROM scale with the quality of spiritual care. The results demonstrated acceptable validity, modelbased reliability and predicative validity for the PROM scale. It is recommended that a further study for cross-validation of the scale in different samples and populations is undertaken. Controlling for other variables such as (positive-negative affect or personality characteristics) for future studies might shed more light on the content validity of the PROM. The study has implications for the longer-term goal of building an evidence base for a spiritual care framework for Australian healthcare organizations and beyond. It is hoped that the data collected will enable spiritual health organizations to contribute to a larger database of evidence, both nationally and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The present study examined the factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition, Spanish (WISC-IV Spanish, Wechsler, 2005a) with normative sample participants aged 6-16 years (N = 500) using confirmatory factor analytic techniques not reported in the WISC-IV Spanish Manual (Wechsler, 2005b). For the 10 core subtest configuration, 1 through 4, first-order factor models, and higher-order versus bifactor models were compared using confirmatory factor analyses. The correlated four-factor Wechsler model provided good fit to these data, but the bifactor model showed statistically significant improvement over the higher-order model and correlated four-factor model. For the 14 core and supplemental subtest configuration, an alternative five-factor model based upon Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC; as per Weiss, et al., 2013b) configuration was also estimated. Results indicated that for the 14 subtest configuration, the alternative CHC model was preferred to the four-factor Wechsler model and the bifactor version of the CHC model also fit these data best. Across both configurations, variance apportionment and model-based reliability estimates illustrate well the dominance of the general intelligence factor when compared to the influence of the various combinations of group factors. Implications for clinical interpretation and the anticipated revision of the measurement instrument are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite substantial revisions involved in creating the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition (WISC-V; Wechsler, 2014a), the test publisher relied exclusively upon confirmatory factor analytic procedures to determine the instrument's structure and failed to apportion the variance among factors and subtests. To fill this lacuna, the factor structure of the 16 primary and secondary subtests of the WISC-V standardization sample was examined with exploratory bifactor analysis (EBFA). EBFA results provided strong support for a general intelligence ( g ) factor, but nominal evidence for three group factors (i.e., Processing Speed, Working Memory, and Perceptual Reasoning). There was no evidence for distinct verbal, fluid reasoning or visual–spatial factors. The g factor accounted for large portions of total and common subtest variance while the group factors accounted for negligible portions of total and common variance. These results suggest that clinical interpretation of the WISC-V should reside primarily at the global level (i.e., Full Scale IQ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The Work Organisation Assessment Questionnaire (WOAQ) was developed as part of a risk assessment tool for the manufacturing setting ( Griffiths, Cox, Karanika, Khan, Tomás, 2006 ). The WOAQ was used in this study to assess its validity and model-based reliability among Australian nurses using a conventional second-order and a bifactor confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Methods This article reports a study of Australian participants ( N = 312) to validate a multidimensional measure of the WOAQ. Data were collected from a group of Australian community nurses. CFA was performed comparing a conventional second-order model and a bifactor model of one WOAQ summative factor and its five subfactors, which together described the most common issues of work design and management in organizations. A group of close fit indices that include relatively greater penalties for model complexity (i.e., the root mean square error of approximation, Non-normed Fit Index, and the Akaike Information Criterion) were chosen to interpret the results. Results The results of reliability and validity analysis revealed some evidence for the summative measure of the WOAQ. Results indicate that the questionnaire is a valid and reliable scale, but some subfactors are more plausible than others within the Australian nursing community. Conclusion The study provides future researchers some guidance for bifactor modeling in organizational studies of this type. The WOAQ provides flexibility to measure risk assessment and management procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]