Simulative and empirical comparison of health scales’ scores derived by confirmatory factor analysis and sum of items.

Cristian Ricci; Sara Isernia; Stefano Terzoni; Francesca Baglio; Carlo La Vecchia

doi:10.54103/2282-0930/29512

Authors

Cristian Ricci North-West University https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4113-8682
Sara Isernia Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation
Stefano Terzoni Department of Biomedical Sciences for Health, University of Milan https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0716-5663
Francesca Baglio Don Carlo Gnocchi Foundation https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6145-5274
Carlo La Vecchia Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, University of Milan https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1441-897X

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54103/2282-0930/29512

Keywords:

Health scales, psychometric scores, sum of items, confirmatory factor analysis, simulation study

Abstract

We focus on how combining questionnaire’s items to derive a score. Data simulation and real data were used to compare questionnaires’ scores derived by sum of items and scores derived from a confirmatory factor analysis. We investigated the equivalence of the sum of items and the latent factor scores from confirmatory factor analysis in simulative and empirical studies. We investigated to what extent the derivation of the score may have influenced the assumptions of linear model analysis. Deriving the questionnaire’s scores using the sum of items or the application of the confirmatory factor analysis is equivalent. This evidence is confirmed in the simulation settings and by empirical data.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Jack B, Clarke AM. The purpose and use of questionnaires in research. Prof Nurse Lond Engl. 1998;14(3):176–9.

Lydeard S. The questionnaire as a research tool. Fam Pract. 1991;8(1):84–91.

Patten M. Questionnaire research: A practical guide. routledge; 2016.

Couper MP. Technology and the survey interview/questionnaire. Envisioning Surv Interview Future. 2008;58–76.

Humble S. Quantitative analysis of questionnaires: Techniques to explore structures and relationships. Routledge; 2020.

Jöreskog KG. Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika. 1971;36(2):109–33.

Mellenbergh GJ. Tests and questionnaires Analysis. Advis Res Methods Consult Companion. 2008;235–68.

McNeish D, Wolf MG. Thinking twice about sum scores. Behav Res Methods. 2020 Dec;52(6):2287–305.

Widaman KF, Revelle W. Thinking thrice about sum scores, and then some more about measurement and analysis. Behav Res Methods. 2023 Feb;55(2):788–806.

Realdon O, Adorni R, Ginelli D, Micucci D, Blasi V, Bellavia D, et al. Embedding the Patient-Citizen Perspective into an Operational Framework for the Development and the Introduction of New Technologies in Rehabilitation Care: The Smart&Touch-ID Model. Healthcare. 2023 May 30;11(11):1604.

Ripley B, Venables B, Bates DM, Hornik K, Gebhardt A, Firth D, et al. Package ‘mass’. Cran R. 2013;538:113–20.

DeBruine L. faux: Simulation for Factorial Designs [Internet]. Zenodo; 2023 [cited 2024 Jan 8]. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/2669586

Wuertz D, RUnit S, Chalabi MY. Package ‘fGarch’. Technical report, working paper/manual, 09.11. 2009. URL http://cran. r …; 2013.

Brooke J. Sus: a “quick and dirty’usability. Usability Eval Ind. 1996;189(3):189–94.

Lewis JR, Sauro J. The factor structure of the system usability scale. In Springer; 2009. p. 94–103.

Borsci S, Federici S, Lauriola M. On the dimensionality of the System Usability Scale: a test of alternative measurement models. Cogn Process. 2009 Aug;10(3):193–7.

Rossetto F, Castelli I, Baglio F, Massaro D, Alberoni M, Nemni R, et al. Cognitive and Affective Theory of Mind in Mild Cognitive Impairment and Parkinson’s Disease: Preliminary Evidence from the Italian Version of the Yoni Task. Dev Neuropsychol. 2018;43(8):764–80.

Isernia S, Rossetto F, Blasi V, Massaro D, Castelli I, Ricci C, et al. Measuring cognitive and affective theory of mind with the Italian Yoni task: normative data and short versions. Curr Psychol. 2023;42(27):23519–30.

Isernia S, Rossetto F, Shamay-Tsoory S, Marchetti A, Baglio F. Standardization and normative data of the 48-item Yoni short version for the assessment of theory of mind in typical and atypical conditions. Front Aging Neurosci. 2022;14:1048599.

Rosseel Y. lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. J Stat Softw. 2012;48:1–36.

Graham JM. Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006;66(6):930–44.

DiStefano C, Zhu M, Mindrila D. Understanding and using factor scores: Considerations for the applied researcher. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2009;14(1):20.

Gorsuch RL. Factor analysis: Classic edition. Routledge; 2014.

Grice JW. Computing and evaluating factor scores. Psychol Methods. 2001;6(4):430.

Bollen KA. Structural equations with latent variables. Vol. 210. John Wiley & Sons; 1989.

Bollen KA. Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences. Annu Rev Psychol. 2002;53(1):605–34.

Bollen K, Lennox R. Conventional wisdom on measurement: A structural equation perspective. Psychol Bull. 1991;110(2):305.

Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications; 2015.

Sijtsma K, Hemker BT. A taxonomy of IRT models for ordering persons and items using simple sum scores. J Educ Behav Stat. 2000;25(4):391–415.

Jacobsen BK, Hasvold T, Høyer G, Hansen V. The General Health Questionnaire: how many items are really necessary in population surveys? Psychol Med. 1995 Sep;25(5):957–61.

Simulative and empirical comparison of health scales’ scores derived by confirmatory factor analysis and sum of items.

Authors

DOI:

Keywords:

Abstract

Downloads

References

Downloads

Published

How to Cite

Issue

Section

Categories

License

Information