Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the motivation assessment scale and resident choice assessment scale

Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities

Volumn 18, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 1-11

  Kearney, Christopher A ^a   Cook, L Caitlin ^a   Chapman, Gillian ^a   Bensaheb, Arva ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEVADA   (United States)

Author keywords

Motivation Assessment Scale; Resident Choice Assessment Scale

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746136080     PISSN: 1056263X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10882-006-9000-1     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Akande, A. (1998). Some South African evidence of the inter-rater reliability of the motivation assessment scale. Educat. Psychol. 18:111-115.
2. Barton-Arwood, S. M., Wehby, J. H., Gunter, P. L., and Lane, K. L. (2003). Functional behavior assessment rating scales: Intrarater reliability with students with emotional or behavioral disorders. Behav. Disord. 28:386-400.
3. Bentler, P. M., and Wu, E. J. C. (2005). EQS 6.1 for Windows, Multivariate Software, Encino, CA.
4. Bihm, E. M., Kienlen, T. L., Ness, M. E., and Poindexter, A. R. (1991). Factor structure of the Motivation Assessment Scale for persons with mental retardation. Psychol. Rep. 68: 1235-1238.
5. Conroy, M. A., Fox, J. J., Bucklin, A., and Good, W. (1996). An analysis of the reliability and stability of the motivation assessment scale in assessing the challenging behaviors of persons with developmental disabilities. Educ. Train. Mental Retard. Develop. Disab. 31: 243-250.
6. Crawford, J., Brockel, B., and Schauss, S. (1992). A comparison of methods for the functional assessment of stereotypic behavior. J. Assoc. Persons Severe Handicaps 17: 77-86.
7. Duker, P. C., and Sigafoos, J. (1998). The motivation assessment scale: Reliability and construct validity across three topographies of behavior. Res. Develop. Disab. 19:131-141.
8. Durand, V. M. (1990). Severe Behavior Problems: A Functional Communication Training Approach, Guilford, New York.
9. Durand, V. M. (1999). Functional communication training using assistive devices: Recruiting natural communities of reinforcement. J. Appl. Behav. Anal. 32:247-267.
10. Durand, V. M., and Crimmins, D. B. (1988). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. J. Autism Develop. Disord. 18: 99-117.
11. Durand, V. M., Crimmins, D. B., Caulfield, M., and Taylor, J. (1989). Reinforcer assessment I: Using problem behavior to select reinforcers. J. Assoc. Persons Severe. Handicaps 14: 113-126.
12. Hartwig, L., Heathfield, L. T., and Jenson, W. R. (2004). Standardization of the functional assessment and intervention program (FAIP) with children who have externalizing behaviors. School Psychol Quart. 19: 272-287.
13. Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika 30:179-185.
14. Kearney, C. A. (1994). Interrater reliability of the Motivation Assessment Scale: Another, closer look. J. Assoc. Persons Severe Handicaps 19: 139-142.
15. Kearney, C. A., Bergan, K. P., and McKnight, T. J. (1998). Choice availability and persons with mental retardation: A longitudinal and regression analysis. J. Develop. Phys. Disab. 10: 291-305.
16. Kearney, C. A., Durand, V. M., and Mindell, J. A. (1995a). Choice assessment in residential settings. J. Develop. Phys. Disab. 7: 203-213.
17. Kearney, C. A., Durand, V. M., and Mindell, J. A. (1995b). It's not where but how you live: Choice and adaptive/maladaptive behavior in persons with severe handicaps. J. Develop. Phys. Disab. 7: 11-24.
18. Kearney, C. A., and McKnight, T. J. (1997). Preference, choice, and persons with disabilities: A synopsis of assessments, interventions, and future directions. Clin. Psychol Rev. 17: 217-238.
19. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford, New York.
20. Newton, J. T., and Sturmey, P. (1991). The motivation assessment scale: Inter-rater reliability and internal consistency in a British sample. J. Mental Deficiency Res. 35: 472-474.
21. O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behav. Res. Methods, Instruments, Comput. 32: 396-402.
22. Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., and Vollmer, T. R. (2001). Assessment of the convergent validity of the questions about behavioral function scale with analogue functional analysis and the motivation assessment scale. J. Intell. Disab. Res. 45: 484-494.
23. Shogren, K. A., and Rojahn, J. (2003). Convergent reliability and validity of the Questions about behavioral function and the motivation assessment scale: A replication study. J. Develop. Phys. Disab. 15: 367-375.
24. Sigafoos, J., Kerr, M., and Roberts, D. (1994). Interrater reliability of the motivation assessment scale: Failure to replicate with aggressive behavior. Res. Develop. Disab. 15: 333-342.
25. Singh, N. N., Donatelli, L. S., Best, A., Williams, D. E., Barrera, F. J., Lenz, M. W., Landrum, T. J., Ellis, C. R., and Moe, T. L. (1993). Factor structure of the motivation assessment scale. J. Intell. Disab. Res. 37: 65-74.
26. Spreat, S., and Connelly, L. (1996). Reliability analysis of the motivation assessment scale. Am. J. Mental Retard. 100: 528-532.
27. Thompson, B. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
28. Thompson, S., and Emerson, E. (1995). Inter-informant agreement on the motivation assessment scale: Another failure to replicate. Mental Handicap Res. 8: 203-208.
29. Young, L., Ashman, A., Sigafoos, J., and Grevell, P. (2001). Closure of the Challinor Centre II: An extended report on 95 individuals after 12 months of community living. J. Intell. Develop. Disab. 26: 51-66.
30. Zarcone, J. R., Rodgers, T. A., Iwata, B. A., Rourke, D. A., and Dorsey, M. F. (1991). Reliability analysis of the Motivation Assessment Scale: A failure to replicate. Res. Develop. Disab. 12: 349-360.
31. Zwick, W. R., and Velicer, W. F. (1986). Factors influencing five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol. Bull 99: 432-442.