方法偏倚对家庭功能常规评价量表系统临床结果内部结构的影响

IF 1 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES
C. Peterson, N. Peterson, Corinne Casey
{"title":"方法偏倚对家庭功能常规评价量表系统临床结果内部结构的影响","authors":"C. Peterson, N. Peterson, Corinne Casey","doi":"10.1177/10664807221123560","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study was conducted to test for method bias stemming from mixing positively and negatively worded items in a widely used measure of family functioning, the Systemic Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (SCORE). Data were collected from a community sample of 377 U.S. adults with children in the household, with 32% reporting greater family difficulties than a clinical pre-therapy average and 66% reporting greater difficulties than a clinical post-therapy average. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to test two models: Model 1, a unidimensional model in which items represented a single theoretical construct and Model 2, a multidimensional model in which items represented a method dimension (i.e., positively worded or negatively worded) as well as an underlying theoretical construct. Fit indices showed that Model 2 fit the data better than Model 1 for all dimensions tested, suggesting that method bias had detrimental effects on the factor structure of dimensions of the SCORE.","PeriodicalId":47151,"journal":{"name":"Family Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of Method Bias on the Internal Structure of the Systemic Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Measure of Family Functioning\",\"authors\":\"C. Peterson, N. Peterson, Corinne Casey\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10664807221123560\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study was conducted to test for method bias stemming from mixing positively and negatively worded items in a widely used measure of family functioning, the Systemic Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (SCORE). Data were collected from a community sample of 377 U.S. adults with children in the household, with 32% reporting greater family difficulties than a clinical pre-therapy average and 66% reporting greater difficulties than a clinical post-therapy average. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to test two models: Model 1, a unidimensional model in which items represented a single theoretical construct and Model 2, a multidimensional model in which items represented a method dimension (i.e., positively worded or negatively worded) as well as an underlying theoretical construct. Fit indices showed that Model 2 fit the data better than Model 1 for all dimensions tested, suggesting that method bias had detrimental effects on the factor structure of dimensions of the SCORE.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47151,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Family Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Family Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807221123560\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10664807221123560","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是为了检验在常规评估系统临床结果(SCORE)中广泛使用的家庭功能测量方法中,由于混合了积极和消极的措辞项目而产生的方法偏差。数据收集自377名家庭中有孩子的美国成年人的社区样本,32%的人报告比临床治疗前的平均家庭困难更大,66%的人报告比临床治疗后的平均家庭困难更大。验证性因子分析(CFA)被用来测试两个模型:模型1,一个单维模型,其中项目代表一个单一的理论结构;模型2,一个多维模型,其中项目代表一个方法维度(即,积极措辞或消极措辞)以及一个潜在的理论结构。拟合指标显示,模型2对所有被测维度的数据拟合优于模型1,说明方法偏差对SCORE维度的因子结构有不利影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Effect of Method Bias on the Internal Structure of the Systemic Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Measure of Family Functioning
This study was conducted to test for method bias stemming from mixing positively and negatively worded items in a widely used measure of family functioning, the Systemic Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation (SCORE). Data were collected from a community sample of 377 U.S. adults with children in the household, with 32% reporting greater family difficulties than a clinical pre-therapy average and 66% reporting greater difficulties than a clinical post-therapy average. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were performed to test two models: Model 1, a unidimensional model in which items represented a single theoretical construct and Model 2, a multidimensional model in which items represented a method dimension (i.e., positively worded or negatively worded) as well as an underlying theoretical construct. Fit indices showed that Model 2 fit the data better than Model 1 for all dimensions tested, suggesting that method bias had detrimental effects on the factor structure of dimensions of the SCORE.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Family Journal
Family Journal FAMILY STUDIES-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
15.40%
发文量
83
期刊介绍: The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families is the official journal of the International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors (IAMFC). The purpose of the journal is to advance the theory, research, and practice of counseling with couples and families from a family systems perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信