eHEALS的因子结构

Pub Date : 2022-10-01 DOI:10.1026/0012-1924/a000294

M. Reder, R. Soellner

{"title":"eHEALS的因子结构","authors":"M. Reder, R. Soellner","doi":"10.1026/0012-1924/a000294","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. The dimensionality of the eHEALS has been the subject of some controversy. Sample populations and language versions vary widely, as do the employed statistical methods to assess dimensionality. In previous research, we assessed the factor structure in two different samples testing 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 correlated factors. The objective of this reanalysis was to assess whether the 3-factor model fitted better than the 2- and 1-factor models. We analyzed data from a 2009 cross-sectional survey on health literacy in grade 12 ( n = 327) using CFA. All factor models of the eHEALS showed unsatisfactory model fit. A subsequent exploratory bifactor analysis confirmed multidimensionality and indicated that Item 2 was problematic. When this item was excluded from the correlated factor models, model fit improved, and the 3-factor model showed the best fit. The results in our sample of 12th-grade students offer some support to the German eHEALS having a 3-factor structure similar to the results from our previous research in women aged 50. The replicability of the fit pattern in a different sample and setting was limited by diverging results on Item 2.","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factor Structure of the eHEALS\",\"authors\":\"M. Reder, R. Soellner\",\"doi\":\"10.1026/0012-1924/a000294\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract. The dimensionality of the eHEALS has been the subject of some controversy. Sample populations and language versions vary widely, as do the employed statistical methods to assess dimensionality. In previous research, we assessed the factor structure in two different samples testing 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 correlated factors. The objective of this reanalysis was to assess whether the 3-factor model fitted better than the 2- and 1-factor models. We analyzed data from a 2009 cross-sectional survey on health literacy in grade 12 ( n = 327) using CFA. All factor models of the eHEALS showed unsatisfactory model fit. A subsequent exploratory bifactor analysis confirmed multidimensionality and indicated that Item 2 was problematic. When this item was excluded from the correlated factor models, model fit improved, and the 3-factor model showed the best fit. The results in our sample of 12th-grade students offer some support to the German eHEALS having a 3-factor structure similar to the results from our previous research in women aged 50. The replicability of the fit pattern in a different sample and setting was limited by diverging results on Item 2.\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000294\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000294","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要eheal的次元一直是一些争议的主题。样本人口和语言版本差异很大，评估维度的统计方法也有很大差异。在之前的研究中，我们评估了两个不同样本的因子结构，分别测试1 vs. 2和1 vs. 2 vs. 3相关因子。这次再分析的目的是评估3因素模型是否比2和1因素模型更适合。我们使用CFA分析了2009年12年级健康素养横断面调查的数据(n = 327)。eHEALS的各因子模型均显示模型拟合不理想。随后的探索性双因子分析证实了多维性，并指出第2项存在问题。当从相关因子模型中剔除这一项后，模型拟合得到改善，其中3因子模型拟合效果最佳。我们在12年级学生样本中的结果为德国eHEALS提供了一些支持，该eHEALS具有与我们之前在50岁女性中研究的结果相似的三因素结构。在不同的样本和环境中，拟合模式的可重复性受到项目2结果差异的限制。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

Factor Structure of the eHEALS

Abstract. The dimensionality of the eHEALS has been the subject of some controversy. Sample populations and language versions vary widely, as do the employed statistical methods to assess dimensionality. In previous research, we assessed the factor structure in two different samples testing 1 vs. 2 and 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 correlated factors. The objective of this reanalysis was to assess whether the 3-factor model fitted better than the 2- and 1-factor models. We analyzed data from a 2009 cross-sectional survey on health literacy in grade 12 ( n = 327) using CFA. All factor models of the eHEALS showed unsatisfactory model fit. A subsequent exploratory bifactor analysis confirmed multidimensionality and indicated that Item 2 was problematic. When this item was excluded from the correlated factor models, model fit improved, and the 3-factor model showed the best fit. The results in our sample of 12th-grade students offer some support to the German eHEALS having a 3-factor structure similar to the results from our previous research in women aged 50. The replicability of the fit pattern in a different sample and setting was limited by diverging results on Item 2.

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