Steven P Reise1, Julien Morizot, Ron D Hays. 1. Department of Psychology, University of California, Franz Hall, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563, USA. reise@psych.ucla.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We propose the application of a bifactor model for exploring the dimensional structure of an item response matrix, and for handling multidimensionality. BACKGROUND: We argue that a bifactor analysis can complement traditional dimensionality investigations by: (a) providing an evaluation of the distortion that may occur when unidimensional models are fit to multidimensional data, (b) allowing researchers to examine the utility of forming subscales, and, (c) providing an alternative to non-hierarchical multidimensional models for scaling individual differences. METHOD: To demonstrate our arguments, we use responses (N = 1,000 Medicaid recipients) to 16 items in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS2.0) survey. ANALYSES: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic and item response theory models (unidimensional, multidimensional, and bifactor) were estimated. RESULTS: CAHPS items are consistent with both unidimensional and multidimensional solutions. However, the bifactor model revealed that the overwhelming majority of common variance was due to a general factor. After controlling for the general factor, subscales provided little measurement precision. CONCLUSION: The bifactor model provides a valuable tool for exploring dimensionality related questions. In the Discussion, we describe contexts where a bifactor analysis is most productively used, and we contrast bifactor with multidimensional IRT models (MIRT). We also describe implications of bifactor models for IRT applications, and raise some limitations.
OBJECTIVES: We propose the application of a bifactor model for exploring the dimensional structure of an item response matrix, and for handling multidimensionality. BACKGROUND: We argue that a bifactor analysis can complement traditional dimensionality investigations by: (a) providing an evaluation of the distortion that may occur when unidimensional models are fit to multidimensional data, (b) allowing researchers to examine the utility of forming subscales, and, (c) providing an alternative to non-hierarchical multidimensional models for scaling individual differences. METHOD: To demonstrate our arguments, we use responses (N = 1,000 Medicaid recipients) to 16 items in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS2.0) survey. ANALYSES: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic and item response theory models (unidimensional, multidimensional, and bifactor) were estimated. RESULTS: CAHPS items are consistent with both unidimensional and multidimensional solutions. However, the bifactor model revealed that the overwhelming majority of common variance was due to a general factor. After controlling for the general factor, subscales provided little measurement precision. CONCLUSION: The bifactor model provides a valuable tool for exploring dimensionality related questions. In the Discussion, we describe contexts where a bifactor analysis is most productively used, and we contrast bifactor with multidimensional IRT models (MIRT). We also describe implications of bifactor models for IRT applications, and raise some limitations.
Authors: Steven P Reise; Rob R Meijer; Andrew T Ainsworth; Leo S Morales; Ron D Hays Journal: Multivariate Behav Res Date: 2006-03-01 Impact factor: 5.923
Authors: Paul K Crane; Adam Carle; Laura E Gibbons; Philip Insel; R Scott Mackin; Alden Gross; Richard N Jones; Shubhabrata Mukherjee; S McKay Curtis; Danielle Harvey; Michael Weiner; Dan Mungas Journal: Brain Imaging Behav Date: 2012-12 Impact factor: 3.978
Authors: Jorunn L Helbostad; Line M Oldervoll; Peter M Fayers; Marit S Jordhøy; Kenneth C H Fearon; Florian Strasser; Stein Kaasa Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2010-03-26 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: R Christopher Sheldrick; Brandi S Henson; Emily N Neger; Shela Merchant; J Michael Murphy; Ellen C Perrin Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2012-10-23 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Noelle E Carlozzi; Michael A Kallen; Robin Hanks; Anna L Kratz; Elizabeth A Hahn; Tracey A Brickell; Rael T Lange; Louis M French; Phillip A Ianni; Jennifer A Miner; Angelle M Sander Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2018-07-31 Impact factor: 3.966
Authors: James J Li; Tammy A Chung; Michael M Vanyukov; D Scott Wood; Robert Ferrell; Duncan B Clark Journal: J Int Neuropsychol Soc Date: 2014-12-15 Impact factor: 2.892