Confirmatory Factor Analysis of The Korean Version Inventory of Interpersonal Problems Personality Disorder Scales: Examination of a Clinical Sample

2011 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 349-357
Author(s):  
임남열 ◽  
이문인 ◽  
Park,Sang-Hak ◽  
Kim,Sang-Hoon ◽  
Jungho Kim ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anneke C. Weide ◽  
Vera Scheuble ◽  
André Beauducel

Difficulties in interpersonal behavior are often measured by the circumplex-based Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Its eight scales can be represented by a three-factor structure with two circumplex factors, Dominance and Love, and a general problem factor, Distress. Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis is well-suited to evaluate the higher-level structure of interpersonal problems because circumplex loading priors allow for data-driven adjustments and a more flexible investigation of the ideal circumplex pattern than conventional maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Using a non-clinical sample from an online questionnaire study (N = 822), we replicated the three-factor structure of the IIP by maximum likelihood and Bayesian confirmatory factor analysis and found great proximity of the Bayesian loadings to perfect circumplexity. We found additional support for the validity of the three-factor model of the IIP by including external criteria-Agreeableness, Extraversion, and Neuroticism from the Big Five and subclinical grandiose narcissism-in the analysis. We also investigated higher-level scores for Dominance, Love, and Distress using traditional regression factor scores and weighted sum scores. We found excellent reliability (with Rtt ≥ 0.90) for Dominance, Love, and Distress for the two scoring methods. We found high congruence of the higher-level scores with the underlying factors and good circumplex properties of the scoring models. The correlational pattern with the external measures was in line with theoretical expectations and similar to the results from the factor analysis. We encourage the use of Bayesian modeling when dealing with circumplex structure and recommend the use of higher-level scores for interpersonal problems as parsimonious, reliable, and valid measures.


2010 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 116-121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fawzi S. Daoud ◽  
Amjed A. Abojedi

This study investigates the equivalent factorial structure of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) in clinical and nonclinical Jordanian populations, using both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The 53-item checklist was administered to 647 nonclinical participants and 315 clinical participants. Eight factors emerged from the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) for the nonclinical sample, and six factors emerged for the clinical sample. When tested by parallel analysis (PA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the results reflected a unidimensional factorial structure in both samples. Furthermore, multigroup CFA showed invariance between clinical and nonclinical unidimensional models, which lends further support to the evidence of the unidimensionality of the BSI. The study suggests that the BSI is a potentially useful measure of general psychological distress in clinical and nonclinical population. Ideas for further research are recommended.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
David G. Zelaya ◽  
Laura Cobourne ◽  
Shola Shodiya-Zeumault ◽  
Caleb N. Chadwick ◽  
Cassandra L. Hinger ◽  
...  

PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (7) ◽  
pp. e0181908 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mia Scheffers ◽  
Marijtje A. J. van Duijn ◽  
Ruud J. Bosscher ◽  
Durk Wiersma ◽  
Robert A. Schoevers ◽  
...  

Assessment ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 1429-1447 ◽  
Author(s):  
Manuel Heinrich ◽  
Pavle Zagorscak ◽  
Michael Eid ◽  
Christine Knaevelsrud

The Beck Depression Inventory–II is one of the most frequently used scales to assess depressive burden. Despite many psychometric evaluations, its factor structure is still a topic of debate. An increasing number of articles using fully symmetrical bifactor models have been published recently. However, they all produce anomalous results, which lead to psychometric and interpretational difficulties. To avoid anomalous results, the bifactor-(S-1) approach has recently been proposed as alternative for fitting bifactor structures. The current article compares the applicability of fully symmetrical bifactor models and symptom-oriented bifactor-(S-1) and first-order confirmatory factor analysis models in a large clinical sample ( N = 3,279) of adults. The results suggest that bifactor-(S-1) models are preferable when bifactor structures are of interest, since they reduce problematic results observed in fully symmetrical bifactor models and give the G factor an unambiguous meaning. Otherwise, symptom-oriented first-order confirmatory factor analysis models present a reasonable alternative.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document