scholarly journals Evidence of Factorial Validity of Parental Knowledge, Control and Solicitation, and Adolescent Disclosure Scales: When the Ordered Nature of Likert Scales Matters

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesca Lionetti ◽  
Loes Keijsers ◽  
Antonio Dellagiulia ◽  
Massimiliano Pastore
Keyword(s):  
Parental Knowledge ◽  
Factorial Validity ◽  
Likert Scales ◽  
Adolescent Disclosure

Parental Knowledge and Its Sources

2009 ◽  
Vol 30 (10) ◽  
pp. 1356-1378 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew F. Bumpus ◽  
Kathleen Boyce Rodgers
Keyword(s):  
Family Structure ◽  
Parental Knowledge ◽  
African American Families ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Single Parent Families ◽  
School Based ◽  
Adolescent Disclosure ◽  
M 14 ◽  
Parental Solicitation ◽  
American Families

This study aims to examine patterns of parental knowledge and its sources (adolescent reports of disclosure, parental solicitation, and parental trust) among adolescents who differ as a function of family structure and race. Data are drawn from adolescents ( N = 2,374, M = 14 years, SD = 1.68) participating in a school-based study. Adolescent disclosure is a stronger predictor of parental knowledge in single-parent families and stepfamilies and in European American families. Conversely, parental solicitation is more highly related to parental knowledge in original two-parent families and in African American families. These findings provide a first step in understanding the ways in which family structure and race may shape the acquisition of parental knowledge. Implications for future research and application are also discussed.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Long and Short Forms of the Worry Domains Questionnaire

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 239-243
Author(s):  
Roberto Nuevo ◽  
Andrés Losada ◽  
María Márquez-González ◽  
Cecilia Peñacoba
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Confirmatory Factor Analysis ◽  
Factor Structure ◽  
Goodness Of Fit ◽  
Factorial Validity ◽  
Fit Indices ◽  
Short Forms ◽  
Confirmatory Factor ◽  
Positive Correlations ◽  
Future Work

The Worry Domains Questionnaire was proposed as a measure of both pathological and nonpathological worry, and assesses the frequency of worrying about five different domains: relationships, lack of confidence, aimless future, work, and financial. The present study analyzed the factor structure of the long and short forms of the WDQ (WDQ and WDQ-SF, respectively) through confirmatory factor analysis in a sample of 262 students (M age = 21.8; SD = 2.6; 86.3% females). While the goodness-of-fit indices did not provide support for the WDQ, good fit indices were found for the WDQ-SF. Furthermore, no source of misspecification was identified, thus, supporting the factorial validity of the WDQ-SF scale. Significant positive correlations between the WDQ-SF and its subscales with worry (PSWQ), anxiety (STAI-T), and depression (BDI) were found. The internal consistency was good for the total scale and for the subscales. This work provides support for the use of the WDQ-SF, and potential uses for research and clinical purposes are discussed.

An Alternative to Self-Reports of Trait and State Affect

2014 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 231-237 ◽  
Author(s):  
Markus Quirin ◽  
Regina C. Bode
Keyword(s):  
Self Report ◽  
Factorial Validity ◽  
Artificial Language ◽  
Cognitive Representation ◽  
Affective States ◽  
Novel Variants ◽  
Self Reports ◽  
State Affect ◽  
Affective Experiences ◽  
Automatic Activation

Self-report measures for the assessment of trait or state affect are typically biased by social desirability or self-delusion. The present work provides an overview of research using a recently developed measure of automatic activation of cognitive representation of affective experiences, the Implicit Positive and Negative Affect Test (IPANAT). In the IPANAT, participants judge the extent to which nonsense words from an alleged artificial language express a number of affective states or traits. The test demonstrates appropriate factorial validity and reliabilities. We review findings that support criterion validity and, additionally, present novel variants of this procedure for the assessment of the discrete emotions such as happiness, anger, sadness, and fear.

Is That Measure Really One-Dimensional?

Methodology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 188-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Esther T. Beierl ◽  
Markus Bühner ◽  
Moritz Heene
Keyword(s):  
Model Fit ◽  
Nuisance Parameters ◽  
Factorial Validity ◽  
Fit Indices ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
Factor Analysis Model ◽  
One Dimensional ◽  
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model ◽  
Cutoff Values ◽  
Confirmatory Factor

Abstract. Factorial validity is often assessed using confirmatory factor analysis. Model fit is commonly evaluated using the cutoff values for the fit indices proposed by Hu and Bentler (1999) . There is a body of research showing that those cutoff values cannot be generalized. Model fit does not only depend on the severity of misspecification, but also on nuisance parameters, which are independent of the misspecification. Using a simulation study, we demonstrate their influence on measures of model fit. We specified a severe misspecification, omitting a second factor, which signifies factorial invalidity. Measures of model fit showed only small misfit because nuisance parameters, magnitude of factor loadings and a balanced/imbalanced number of indicators per factor, also influenced the degree of misfit. Drawing from our results, we discuss challenges in the assessment of factorial validity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document