Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Quality of Life Research
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research 1/2007

01.08.2007 | Original Paper

The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures

verfasst von: Steven P. Reise, Julien Morizot, Ron D. Hays

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Sonderheft 1/2007

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Objectives

We propose the application of a bifactor model for exploring the dimensional structure of an item response matrix, and for handling multidimensionality.

Background

We argue that a bifactor analysis can complement traditional dimensionality investigations by: (a) providing an evaluation of the distortion that may occur when unidimensional models are fit to multidimensional data, (b) allowing researchers to examine the utility of forming subscales, and, (c) providing an alternative to non-hierarchical multidimensional models for scaling individual differences.

Method

To demonstrate our arguments, we use responses (N =  1,000 Medicaid recipients) to 16 items in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS©2.0) survey.

Analyses

Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic and item response theory models (unidimensional, multidimensional, and bifactor) were estimated.

Results

CAHPS© items are consistent with both unidimensional and multidimensional solutions. However, the bifactor model revealed that the overwhelming majority of common variance was due to a general factor. After controlling for the general factor, subscales provided little measurement precision.

Conclusion

The bifactor model provides a valuable tool for exploring dimensionality related questions. In the Discussion, we describe contexts where a bifactor analysis is most productively used, and we contrast bifactor with multidimensional IRT models (MIRT). We also describe implications of bifactor models for IRT applications, and raise some limitations.
Vorheriger Artikel Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement
Nächster Artikel Differential item functioning and health assessment

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Literatur
1.
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
2.
Bjorner, J. B., Kosinksi, M., & Ware, J. E. Jr. (2003a). The feasibility of applying item response theory to measures of migraine impact: A re-analysis of three clinical studies. Quality of Life Research, 12, 887–902.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Bjorner, J. B., Kosinksi, M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2003b). Using item response theory to calibrate the Headache Impact Test (HITTM) to the metric of traditional scales. Quality of Life Research, 12, 981–1002.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bjorner, J. B., Kosinksi, M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2003c). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HITTM) to the metric of traditional scales. Quality of Life Research, 12, 913–933.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Haley, S. M., McHorney, C. A., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (1994). Evaluation of the MOS SF-36 physical functioning scale (PF-10): I. unidimensionality and reproducibility of the Rasch item scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 47, 671–684.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Medical Care, 38(Suppl. 9), 60–65.
7.
Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(Suppl. 2), 28–42.
8.
Reise, S. P. (2004). Item response theory and its applications for cancer outcomes measurement. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. F. Snyder (Eds.), The cancer outcomes measurement working group (COMWG): An NCI initiative to improve the science of outcomes measurement in cancer (pp. 425–444). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Christoffersson, A. (1975). Factor analysis of dichotomized variables. Psychometrika, 40, 5–32.CrossRef
10.
Knol, D. L., & Berger, M. P. F. (1991). Empirical comparison between factor analytic and multidimensional item response models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 457–477.CrossRef
11.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
McDonald, R. P. (2000). A basis for multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 99–114.CrossRef
13.
Takane, Y., & de Leeuw, J. (1987). On the relationship between item response theory and factor analysis of discretized variables. Psychometrika, 52, 393–408.CrossRef
14.
Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research. (1999). Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study – CAHPS©2.0 survey and reporting kit. Rockville, Maryland: Author (AHPR).
15.
Hargraves, J. L., Hays, R. D., & Cleary, P. D. (2003). Psychometric properties of the Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study (CAHPS®) 2.0 adult core survey. Health Services Research, 38, 1509–1527.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Reise, S. P., Meijer, R. R., Ainsworth, A. T., Morales, L. S., & Hays, R. D. (2006). Application of group level item response models in the evaluation of consumer reports about health plan quality. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 85–102.CrossRef
17.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12, 287–297.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1996). Theoretical, methodological, and validational bases of the Halstein-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. In I. Grant & K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.
19.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). Psychological theory and scientific method. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 1–18). Chicago: Rand McNally.
20.
Ackerman, T. A. (1994). Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 225–278.
21.
Ackerman, T. A. (1996). Graphical representation of multidimensional item response theory analyses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 4, 311–330.CrossRef
22.
Reckase, M. D. (1997). The past and future of multidimensional item response theory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21, 25–36.CrossRef
23.
Reckase, M. D., Ackerman, T. A., & Carlson, J. E. (1988). Building a unidimensional test using multidimensional items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 25, 193–203.CrossRef
24.
McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of test and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100–117.
25.
Hattie, J. (1985). Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of test and items. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 139–164.CrossRef
26.
Chernyshenko, O. S., Stark, S., & Chan, K. Y. (2001). Investigating the hierarchical factor structure of the fifth edition of the 16PF: An application of the Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61, 290–302.CrossRef
27.
Drasgow, F., & Lissak, R. I. (1983). Modified parallel analysis: A procedure for examining the latent dimensionality of dichotomously scored item responses. Journal of Applied Psychology, 68, 363–373.CrossRef
28.
Nandakumar, R., & Stout, W. F. (1993). Refinement of Stout’s procedure for assessing latent trait dimensionality. Journal of Educational Statistics, 18, 41–68.CrossRef
29.
Stout, W. (1987). A nonparametric approach for assessing latent trait unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 52, 589–617.CrossRef
30.
Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. R. (1992). Full-information item bifactor analysis. Psychometrika, 57, 423–436.CrossRef
31.
Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bifactor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41–54.CrossRef
32.
Schmid, J., & Leiman, J. M. (1957). The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika, 22, 53–61.CrossRef
33.
Yung, Y. F., Thissen, D., & McLeod, L. D. (1999). On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika, 64, 113–128.CrossRef
34.
Gustafsson, J., & Balke, G. (1993). General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 407–434.CrossRef
35.
Wang, W., Chen, P., & Cheng, Y. (2004). Improving measurement precision of test batteries using multidimensional item response models. Psychological Methods, 9, 116–136.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Segall, D. O. (1996). Multidimensional adaptive testing. Psychometrika 61, 331–354.CrossRef
37.
Rindskopf, D., & Rose, T. (1988). Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 51–67.CrossRef
38.
Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41, 189–224.CrossRef
39.
Waller, N. G. (2001). MicroFACT 2.0: A microcomputer factor analysis program for ordered polytomous data and mainframe size problems [computer program]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
40.
Wolff, H., & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item and higher order factor structure with the Schmid-Leiman solution: Syntax codes for SPSS and SAS. Behavioral Research Methods, 37, 48–58.
41.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide [version 3; computer program]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
42.
Kass, R. E., & Wasserman, L. (1995). A reference Bayesian test for nested hypotheses and its relationship to the Schwartz criterion. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 928–934.CrossRef
43.
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34, 100–114.
44.
Muraki, E., & Carlson, J. E. (1995). Full-information factor analysis for polytomous item responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 73–90.CrossRef
45.
Wood, R., Wilson, D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S., Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis [version 4; computer program]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
46.
Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Full information item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 261–280.CrossRef
47.
Swygert, K. A., McLeod, L. D., & Thissen, D. (2001). Factor analysis for items or testlets scored in more than two categories. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 217–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
48.
Steinberg, L., & Thissen, D. (1996). Uses of item response theory and the testlet concept in the measurement of psychopathology. Psychological Methods, 1, 81–97.CrossRef
49.
Davey, T., Oshima, T. C., & Lee, K. (1996). Linking multidimensional item calibrations. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 405–416.CrossRef
50.
Li, Y. H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2000). An evaluation of the accuracy of multidimensional IRT linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 115–138.
51.
Ackerman, T. A. (1992). An explanation of differential item functioning from a multidimensional perspective. Journal of Educational Measurement, 24, 67–91.CrossRef
52.
Roussos, L., & Stout, W. (1996). A multidimensionality-based DIF analysis paradigm. Applied Psychological Measurement, 20, 355–371.CrossRef
53.
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491.PubMedCrossRef
54.
Fraser, C., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). NOHARM: Least squares item factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23, 267–269.CrossRef
55.
Gibbons, R. D., Bock, R. D., Hedeker, D., Weiss, D. J., Segawa, E., Bhaumik, D. K., Kupfer, D. J., Frank, E., Grochocinski, V. J., & Stover, A. (2007). Full-information item bi-factor analysis of graded response data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31, 4–19.CrossRef
56.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1995). LISREL 8 users’s reference guide [computer program]. Chicago: Scientific Software.
Metadaten
Titel
The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures
verfasst von
Steven P. Reise
Julien Morizot
Ron D. Hays
Publikationsdatum
01.08.2007
Verlag
Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in
Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe Sonderheft 1/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-007-9183-7

Weitere Artikel der Sonderheft 1/2007

Quality of Life Research 1/2007 Zur Ausgabe

Original Paper

Linking scores from multiple health outcome instruments

Original Paper

The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment

Original Paper

Next steps for use of item response theory in the assessment of health outcomes

Original Paper

Differential item functioning and health assessment

Original Paper

Evaluating measurement equivalence using the item response theory log-likelihood ratio (IRTLR) method to assess differential item functioning (DIF): applications (with illustrations) to measures of physical functioning ability and general distress

Original Paper

Applying item response theory (IRT) modeling to questionnaire development, evaluation, and refinement

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise