Factorial validity of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS)

American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities

Volumn 115, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 327-339

  Kuppens, Sofie ^a   Bossaert, Goele ^a   Buntinx, Wil ^b   Molleman, Catherin ^c   Van Den Abbeele, Ann ^c   Maes, Bea ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LEUVEN   (Belgium)

^b MAASTRICHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^c Flemish Agency for Disabled Persons   (Belgium)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BELGIUM; DISABILITY; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; MENTAL DEFICIENCY; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOCIAL SUPPORT; STATISTICS;

ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BELGIUM; DISABILITY EVALUATION; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MENTAL RETARDATION; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDS ASSESSMENT; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOCIAL SUPPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77956625587     PISSN: 19447558     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1352/1944-7558-115.4.327     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78-102.
2. Bigby, C., & Balandin, S. (2004). Issues in researching the ageing of people with intellectual disability. In E. Emerson, C. Hatton, T. Thompson, & T. R. Parmenter (Eds.), International handbook of applied research in intellectual disabilities (pp. 221-236). Chichester: Wiley.
3. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
4. Buntinx, W. H. E. (2006). Schaal Intensiteit van Ondersteuningsbehoeften. Handleiding. [Supports Intensity Scale: Users' manual]. Utrecht, The Netherlands: Vereniging Voor Deskundigheidsbevordering In De Zorg Voor Mensen Met Een Verstandelijke Handicap.
5. Buntinx, W. H. E. (2008). The Dutch version of the Supports Intensity Scale. In R. L. Schalock, J. R. Thompson, & M. J. Tassé (Eds.), Psychometric properties of the Supports Intensity Scale (pp. 6-10). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
6. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
7. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
9. Flemish Agency for Disabled Persons. (2006, October). Project zorggradatie: Inschaling meerderjarige cliënten. Brussels: Author.
10. Giné, C. (2008). Catalan translation of the Supports Intensity Scale. In R. L. Schalock, J. R. Thompson, & M. J. Tassé (Eds.), International implementation of the Supports Intensity Scale (pp. 7-8). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
11. Guscia, R., Harries, J., Kirby, N., Nettelbeck, T., & Taplin, J. (2006). Construct and criterion validities of the Service Need Assessment Profile (SNAP): A measure of support for people with disabilities. Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 31, 148-155. (Pubitemid 44359317)
12. Ham, L. S., Stewart, S. H., Norton, P. J., & Hopel, D. A. (2005). Psychometric assessment of the Comprehensive Effects of Alcohol Questionnaire: Comparing a brief version to the original full scale. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 27, 141-158. (Pubitemid 40543691)
13. Harries, J., Guscia, R., Kirby, N., Nettelbeck, T., & Taplin, J. (2005). Support needs and adaptive behaviors. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 110, 393-404.
14. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
15. John, O. P., & Soto, C. J. (2007). The importance of being valid: Reliability and the process of construct validation. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 461-494). New York: Guilford.
16. Jöreskog, K. G. (2004). Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL. Unpublished paper. Available on-line at http://www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf
17. Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (2005). LISREL 8.72. Lincolnwood: Scientific Software.
18. Lamoureux-Hébert, M., & Morin, D. (2008). French translation of the Supports Intensity Scale. In R. L. Schalock, J. R. Thompson, & M. J. Tassé (Eds.), International implementation of the Supports Intensity Scale (pp. 3-4). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
19. Llewellyn, G., Riches, V. C., Hindmarsh, G. J., Parmenter, T. R., & Chan, J. (2005). I-CAN: Instrument to classify support needs for people with disability. Sydney, Australia: University of Sydney and Centre for Developmental Disabilities Studies.
20. Luckasson, R., Borthwick-Duffy, S., Buntinx, W. H. E., Coulter, D. L., Craig, E. M., Reeve, A., Schalock, R. L., Snell, M. E., Spitalnik, D.M., Spreat, S., & Tassé, M. J. (2002). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (10th ed.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
21. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
22. Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Problems with item parceling for confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 369-403. (Pubitemid 43877157)
23. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543.
24. Millsap, R. E., & Yun-Tein, J. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479-516.
25. Morin, D., & Cobigo, V. (2008). The French Version of the Supports Intensity Scale. In R. L. Schalock, J. R. Thompson, & M. J. Tassé (Eds.), Psychometric properties of the Supports Intensity Scale (pp. 3-4). Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
26. Schalock, R. L., Thompson, J. R., & Tassé, M. J. (2008a). International implementation of the Supports Intensity Scale. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
27. Schalock, R. L., Thompson, J. R., & Tassé, M. J. (2008b). Relating Supports Intensity Scale information to Individual Service Plans. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
28. Schalock, R. L., Thompson, J. R., & Tassé, M. J. (2008c). Resource allocation and the Supports Intensity Scale: Four papers on issues and approaches. Washington, DC: American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
29. Steenkamp, J. E. M., & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
30. Thompson, J. R., Bryant, B. R., Campbell, E. M., Craig, E. M., Hughes, C. M., Rotholz, D. A., Schalock, R. L., Silverman, W. P., Tassé, M. J., & Wehmeyer, M. L. (2004). Supports Intensity Scale. Users' manual. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
31. Thompson, J. R., McGrew, K. S., & Bruininks, R. H. (2002). Pieces of the puzzle: Measuring the personal competence and support needs of persons with intellectual disabilities. Peabody Journal of Education, 77, 23-39.
32. Thompson, J. R., Tassé, M. J., & McLaughlin, C. A. (2008). Interrater reliability of the Supports Intensity Scale (SIS). American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113, 231-237.
33. Verdugo, M., Arias, B., Ibanéz, A., & Gómez, L. (2006). Validation of the Spanish version of Supports Intensity Scale. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 19, 274.
34. Wang, Y., & Liu, Q. (2006). Comparison of Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC) in selection of stock-recruitment relationships. Fisheries Research, 77, 220-225. (Pubitemid 43138751)
35. Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention: Methodological advances from alcohol and substance abuse research (pp. 281-324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. World Health Organization. (2001). International classification of functioning, disability, and health (ICF). Geneva: Author.