SAEBRS师生量表的独立因子结构复制。

School psychology (Washington, D.C.) Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-13 DOI:10.1037/spq0000597
Thomas J Gross, Susan Keesey
{"title":"SAEBRS师生量表的独立因子结构复制。","authors":"Thomas J Gross, Susan Keesey","doi":"10.1037/spq0000597","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to independently assess the best-fitting factor models of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS) student and teacher forms. To do this, we used previously published confirmatory factor analysis procedures (see von der Embse, Iaccarino, et al., 2017) in an attempt to replicate the factor structure. Unidimensional, correlated-factors, higher order, bifactor, and bifactor with correlated residuals models were assessed. The bifactor model yielded the best fit for the student, χ² = 286.58, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>χ²/df</i> = 1.91, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .839, TLI = .796, WRMR = 1.047, and teacher forms, χ² = 502.44, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>χ²/df</i> = 3.78, RMSEA = .095, CFI = .977, TLI = .971, WRMR = 1.193. Nonetheless, the majority of the fit statistics indicated an adequate fit for the student form. The SAEBRS Total Behavior score was found to have the greatest reliability for the student, ω = .77, ωH = .76, and teacher forms, ω = .93, ωH = .86, as well. Model, factor, and item-level indexes indicated mixed support for unidimensionality versus multidimensionality on student and teacher forms. Generally, it is implicated that the SAEBRS overall score was the soundest score for screening risk with the student and teacher forms. However, future investigations could consider a wider variety of methods to test competing factor structures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74763,"journal":{"name":"School psychology (Washington, D.C.)","volume":" ","pages":"65-76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Independent factor structure replication of the SAEBRS teacher and student scales.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas J Gross, Susan Keesey\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/spq0000597\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The purpose of this study was to independently assess the best-fitting factor models of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS) student and teacher forms. To do this, we used previously published confirmatory factor analysis procedures (see von der Embse, Iaccarino, et al., 2017) in an attempt to replicate the factor structure. Unidimensional, correlated-factors, higher order, bifactor, and bifactor with correlated residuals models were assessed. The bifactor model yielded the best fit for the student, χ² = 286.58, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>χ²/df</i> = 1.91, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .839, TLI = .796, WRMR = 1.047, and teacher forms, χ² = 502.44, <i>p</i> < .001, <i>χ²/df</i> = 3.78, RMSEA = .095, CFI = .977, TLI = .971, WRMR = 1.193. Nonetheless, the majority of the fit statistics indicated an adequate fit for the student form. The SAEBRS Total Behavior score was found to have the greatest reliability for the student, ω = .77, ωH = .76, and teacher forms, ω = .93, ωH = .86, as well. Model, factor, and item-level indexes indicated mixed support for unidimensionality versus multidimensionality on student and teacher forms. Generally, it is implicated that the SAEBRS overall score was the soundest score for screening risk with the student and teacher forms. However, future investigations could consider a wider variety of methods to test competing factor structures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"School psychology (Washington, D.C.)\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"65-76\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"School psychology (Washington, D.C.)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000597\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"School psychology (Washington, D.C.)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000597","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是独立评估社会、学术和情感行为风险筛选(SAEBRS)学生和教师表格的最佳拟合因素模型。为此,我们使用了先前发表的验证性因子分析程序(见von der Embse, Iaccarino等人,2017),试图复制因子结构。评估了单维、相关因素、高阶、双因素和双因素相关残差模型。双因素模型最适合学生,χ²= 286.58,p < 0.001, χ²/df = 1.91, RMSEA = 0.070, CFI = 0.839, TLI = 0.796, WRMR = 1.047,教师形式,χ²= 502.44,p < 0.001, χ²/df = 3.78, RMSEA = 0.095, CFI = 0.977, TLI = 0.971, WRMR = 1.193。尽管如此,大多数拟合统计数据表明,适合学生形式。研究发现,SAEBRS总行为评分对学生的信度最高,ω = 0.77, ω h = 0.76,对教师的信度也最高,ω = 0.93, ω h = 0.86。模型、因素和项目水平指标表明,学生和教师表格对单维度和多维维度的支持是混合的。一般来说,这意味着SAEBRS总分是学生和教师表格筛选风险的最佳分数。然而,未来的研究可以考虑更广泛的方法来测试竞争因素结构。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Independent factor structure replication of the SAEBRS teacher and student scales.

The purpose of this study was to independently assess the best-fitting factor models of the Social, Academic, and Emotional Behavior Risk Screener (SAEBRS) student and teacher forms. To do this, we used previously published confirmatory factor analysis procedures (see von der Embse, Iaccarino, et al., 2017) in an attempt to replicate the factor structure. Unidimensional, correlated-factors, higher order, bifactor, and bifactor with correlated residuals models were assessed. The bifactor model yielded the best fit for the student, χ² = 286.58, p < .001, χ²/df = 1.91, RMSEA = .070, CFI = .839, TLI = .796, WRMR = 1.047, and teacher forms, χ² = 502.44, p < .001, χ²/df = 3.78, RMSEA = .095, CFI = .977, TLI = .971, WRMR = 1.193. Nonetheless, the majority of the fit statistics indicated an adequate fit for the student form. The SAEBRS Total Behavior score was found to have the greatest reliability for the student, ω = .77, ωH = .76, and teacher forms, ω = .93, ωH = .86, as well. Model, factor, and item-level indexes indicated mixed support for unidimensionality versus multidimensionality on student and teacher forms. Generally, it is implicated that the SAEBRS overall score was the soundest score for screening risk with the student and teacher forms. However, future investigations could consider a wider variety of methods to test competing factor structures. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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