Factor structure and measurement invariance of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire: Does the subjectivity of the response perspective threaten the contextual validity of inferences?

SAGE Open Medicine

Volumn 3, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Elsworth, Gerald R ^a   Nolte, Sandra ^a,b   Osborne, Richard H ^a  

^a DEAKIN UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b CHARITÉ UNIVERSITÄTSMEDIZIN BERLIN   (Germany)

Author keywords

construct validation; Health Education Impact Questionnaire; Health program evaluation; measurement invariance; patient self report measure

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS; DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY; EDUCATION; ENGLISH (LANGUAGE); ETHNIC BACKGROUND; EXPERIMENTAL STUDY; EXPLORATORY RESEARCH; FEMALE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HEALTH PROGRAM; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PRETEST POSTTEST DESIGN; QUESTIONNAIRE; REASONING; RELIABILITY; SELF MONITORING; SELF REPORT; STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING;

EID: 85011019314     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20503121     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2050312115585041     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Shadish WR, Cook TD and Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalised causal inference. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2002.
2. Buchbinder R, Batterham R, Elsworth G, et al. A validity-driven approach to the understanding of the personal and soci-etal burden of low back pain: development of a conceptual and measurement model. Arthritis Res Ther 2011; 13: R152.
3. Moss PA. Shifting conceptions of validity in educational measurement: implications for performance assessment. Rev Educ Res 1992; 62: 229–258.
4. Moss PA. Reconstructing validity. Educ Res 2007; 36: 470– 476.
5. Phillips K, Muller-Clemm W, Ysselstein M, et al. Evaluating health inequity interventions: applying a contextual (exter-nal) validity framework to programs funded by the Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Eval Program Plann 2013; 36: 198–203.
6. Osborne R, Hawkins M and Sprangers MAG. Change of per-spective: a measurable and desired outcome of chronic disease self-management intervention programs that violates the premise of preintervention/postintervention assessment. Arthritis Rheum 2006; 55: 458–465.
7. Schwartz CE and Sprangers MAG. Methodological approaches for assessing response shift in longitudinal health-related qual-ity-of-life research. Soc Sci Med 1999; 48: 1531–1548.
8. Rapkin BD and Schwartz CE. Toward a theoretical model of quality-of-life appraisal: implications of findings from studies of response shift. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 1–12.
9. Oort FJ. Using structural equation modeling to detect response shifts and true change. Qual Life Res 2005; 14: 587–598.
10. Nolte S, Elsworth GR, Newman S, et al. Measurement issues in the evaluation of chronic disease self-management pro-grams. Qual Life Res 2012; 22: 1655–1664.
11. Schwartz CE and Rapkin BD. Reconsidering the psychomet-rics of quality of life assessment in light of response shift and appraisal. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2004; 2: 2–16.
12. Jöreskog KG. Simultaneous factor analysis in several popula-tions. Psychometrika 1971; 36: 409–426.
13. King-Kallimanis BL, Oort FJ and Garst GJA. Using structural equation modelling to detect measurement bias and response shift in longitudinal data. AStA: Adv Stat Anal 2010; 94: 139– 156.
14. Nolte S and Elsworth GR. Factorial invariance. In: Michalos AC (ed.) Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research. Dordrecht: Springer, 2013, pp. 2146–2148.
15. Meredith W. Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika 1993; 58: 525–543.
16. Meredith W and Teresi JA. An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Med Care 2006; 44: S69–S77.
17. Osborne R, Elsworth G and Whitfield K. The Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ): an outcomes and evaluation measure for patient education and self-management interventions for people with chronic conditions. Patient Educ Couns 2007; 66: 192–201.
18. Osborne R, Batterham R and Livingston J. The evaluation of chronic diseases self-management support across settings: the international experience of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire quality monitoring system. Nurs Clin North Am 2011; 46: 255–270.
19. Nolte S, Elsworth GR, Sinclair A, et al. Tests of measurement invariance failed to support the application of the ‘then-test’. J Clin Epidemiol 2009; 62: 1173–1180.
20. Nolte S. Approaches to the measurement of outcomes of chronic disease self-management interventions using a self-report inventory. Melbourne, VIC, Australia: School of Global Studies, Social Science and Planning, RMIT University, 2008.
21. Millsap RE and Meredith W. Factorial invariance: historical perspectives and new problems. In: Cudeck R and MacCallum RC (eds) Factor analysis at 100: historical perspectives and future developments. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2007, pp. 131–152.
22. Millsap RE and Olivera-Aguilar M. Investigating measurement invariance using confirmatory factor analysis. In: Hoyle RH (ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012, pp. 380–392.
23. Millsap RE and Yun-Tien J. Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivar Behav Res 2004; 39: 479–515.
24. Steenkamp JB and Baumgartner H. Assessing measurement invariance in cross-national consumer research. J Consum Res 1998; 25: 78–90.
25. Widaman KF, Ferrer E and Conger RD. Factorial invariance within longitudinal structural equation models: measuring the same construct across time. Child Dev Perspect 2010; 4: 10– 18.
26. Steinmetz H. Analysing observed composite differences across groups: is partial measurement invariance enough? Meth Eur J Res Behav Soc Sci 2013; 9: 1–12.
27. Gregorich SE. Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Med Care 2006; 44: S78–S94.
28. Anderson JC and Gerbing DW. Some methods for respecify-ing measurement models to obtain unidimensional construct measurement. J Marketing Res 1982; 19: 453–460.
29. Anderson JC and Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull 1988; 103: 411–423.
30. Hattie J. Methodology review: Assessing unidimensionality of tests and items. Appl Psych Meas 1985; 9: 139–164.
31. McDonald RP. Test theory: a unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1999.
32. Ping RA Jr. On assuring valid measures for theoretical models using survey data. J Bus Res 2004; 57: 125–141.
33. Raykov T. Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH (ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: The Guilford Press, 2012, pp. 472–492.
34. Muthén LK and Muthén BO. Mplus user’s guide. 7th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 1998–2012.
35. McDonald RP. Semiconfirmatory factor analysis: the exam-ple of anxiety and depression. Struct Equ Modeling 2005; 12: 163–172.
36. Asparouhov T and Muthén B. Exploratory structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Modeling 2009; 16: 397–438.
37. Marsh HW, Liem GAD, Martin AJ, et al. Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): new approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. J Psychoeduc Assess 2011; 29: 322–346.
38. Marsh HW, Muthén B, Asparouhov T, et al. Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Struct Equ Modeling 2009; 16: 439–476.
39. Marsh HW, Nagengast B, Morin AJS, et al. Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimiza-tion: an application of exploratory structural equation mod-eling. J Educ Psychol 2011; 103: 701–732.
40. Byrne BM. Structural equation modeling with Mplus: basic concepts, applications and programming. New York: Routledge, 2012.
41. Asparouhov T and Muthén B. Weighted least squares estima-tion with missing data. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén, 2010, http://www.statmodel.com/
42. Browne MW and Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA and Long JS (eds) Testing structural equation models. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE, 1993, pp. 136– 162.
43. Yu C-Y. Evaluating cutoff criteria of model fit indices for latent variable models with binary and continuous outcomes. Los Angeles, CA: Education, University of California, Los Angeles, 2002.
44. West SG, Taylor AB and Wu W. Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In: Hoyle RH (ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York; London: The Guilford Press, 2012, pp. 209–231.
45. Thurstone LL. Multiple factor analysis. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1947.
46. Browne MW. An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivar Behav Res 2001; 36: 111–150.
47. Raykov T, Marcoulides GA and Cheng-Hsien L. Measurement invariance for latent constructs in multiple populations: a criti-cal view and refocus. Educ Psychol Meas 2012; 72: 954–974.
48. Mulaik SA and Millsap RE. Doing the four-step right. Struct Equ Modeling 2000; 7: 36–73.
49. Raykov T. Reliability if deleted, not ‘alpha if deleted’: evaluation of scale reliability following component deletion. Br J Math Stat Psychol 2007; 60: 201–216.
50. Reichenheim M, Souza W, Coutinho ESF, et al. Structural validity of the Tonic Immobility Scale in a population exposed to trauma: evidence from two large Brazilian samples. PLoS ONE 2014; 9: e94367.
51. Farrell AM. Insufficient discriminant validity: a comment on Bove, Pervan, Beatty, and Shiu. J Bus Res 2010; 63: 324–327.
52. Fornell C and Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res 1981; 18: 39–50.
53. Fabrigar LR, Wegener DT, MacCallum RC, et al. Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol Methods 1999; 4: 272–299.
54. Marsh HW, Lüdtke O, Muthén B, et al. A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychol Assess 2010; 22: 471–491.
55. Brown TA. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press, 2006.
56. Kenny DA and McCoach DB. Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Struct Equ Modeling 2003; 10: 333–351.
57. Chen FF. Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2007; 14: 464– 504.
58. Cheung GW and Rensvold RB. Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Struct Equ Modeling 2002; 9: 233–255.
59. Epstein J, Osborne RH, Elsworth GR, et al. Cross-cultural adaptation of the heiQ questionnaire: experimental study showed expert committee, not back-translation, added value. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 360–369.
60. Schuler M, Musekamp G, Faller H, et al. Assessment of proxi-mal outcomes of self-management programs: translation and psychometric evaluation of a German version of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ™). Qual Life Res 2013; 22: 1391–1403.
61. Morita R, Arakida M, Osborne RH, et al. Adaptation and validation of the Japanese version of the Health Education Impact Questionnaire (heiQ-J) for the evaluation of self-management education interventions. Jpn J Nurs Sci 2013; 10: 255–266.