Nina Deng1, Rick Guyer, John E Ware. 1. Quantitative Health Sciences Department, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, 01655, USA, deng.nina@measuredprogress.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Vitality is an important domain reflecting both the physical and emotional components of health-related quality of life. Because of its complexity, it has been defined and measured both broadly and narrowly. We explored the dimensionality of a very comprehensive item bank hypothesized to measure vitality and its related concepts. METHODS: Secondary analyses were conducted using the responses of 1,343 adults representative of the US general population to Internet-based surveys including 42 items compiled from multiple scales (e.g., SF-36 Vitality, PROMIS-Fatigue), covering a broad range of vitality-related content areas (energy, fatigue, and their interference with physical, mental, social activities, and quality of life). Exploratory and confirmatory factor models were evaluated independently using split-half samples. Bifactor model was used to assess the essential unidimensionality of the items, in comparison with traditional unidimensional, multidimensional, and hierarchical models. Method effects of a common scale or phrase were modeled via correlating errors. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis identified one dominant factor. The confirmatory factor analysis identified a best-fitting (CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.084) bifactor model with one general (vitality) and two group (energy and fatigue) factors, explaining 69, 3, and 4 % of total variance. Correlating errors accounting for the method effects were important in identifying the substantive dimensionality of the items. CONCLUSIONS: The bifactor model proved to be useful for evaluating the dimensionality of a complex construct. Results supported conceptualizing and measuring vitality as a unidimensional energy-fatigue construct. We encourage future studies comparing practical implications of measures based on the broader and narrower conceptualizations of vitality.
PURPOSE: Vitality is an important domain reflecting both the physical and emotional components of health-related quality of life. Because of its complexity, it has been defined and measured both broadly and narrowly. We explored the dimensionality of a very comprehensive item bank hypothesized to measure vitality and its related concepts. METHODS: Secondary analyses were conducted using the responses of 1,343 adults representative of the US general population to Internet-based surveys including 42 items compiled from multiple scales (e.g., SF-36 Vitality, PROMIS-Fatigue), covering a broad range of vitality-related content areas (energy, fatigue, and their interference with physical, mental, social activities, and quality of life). Exploratory and confirmatory factor models were evaluated independently using split-half samples. Bifactor model was used to assess the essential unidimensionality of the items, in comparison with traditional unidimensional, multidimensional, and hierarchical models. Method effects of a common scale or phrase were modeled via correlating errors. RESULTS: The exploratory factor analysis identified one dominant factor. The confirmatory factor analysis identified a best-fitting (CFI = 0.964, RMSEA = 0.084) bifactor model with one general (vitality) and two group (energy and fatigue) factors, explaining 69, 3, and 4 % of total variance. Correlating errors accounting for the method effects were important in identifying the substantive dimensionality of the items. CONCLUSIONS: The bifactor model proved to be useful for evaluating the dimensionality of a complex construct. Results supported conceptualizing and measuring vitality as a unidimensional energy-fatigue construct. We encourage future studies comparing practical implications of measures based on the broader and narrower conceptualizations of vitality.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Ron D Hays; Jakob B Bjorner; Karon F Cook; Paul K Crane; Jeanne A Teresi; David Thissen; Dennis A Revicki; David J Weiss; Ronald K Hambleton; Honghu Liu; Richard Gershon; Steven P Reise; Jin-shei Lai; David Cella Journal: Med Care Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: R H Brook; J E Ware; A Davies-Avery; A L Stewart; C A Donald; W H Rogers; K N Williams; S A Johnston Journal: Med Care Date: 1979-07 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Chad Ebesutani; Christopher F Drescher; Steven P Reise; Laurie Heiden; Terry L Hight; John D Damon; John Young Journal: J Pers Assess Date: 2012
Authors: S H Croog; S Levine; M A Testa; B Brown; C J Bulpitt; C D Jenkins; G L Klerman; G H Williams Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1986-06-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: S J Bartlett; A K Gutierrez; A Butanis; V P Bykerk; J R Curtis; S Ginsberg; A L Leong; A Lyddiatt; W B Nowell; A M Orbai; K C Smith; C O Bingham Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-05-24 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Carol M Moinpour; Joseph M Unger; Patricia A Ganz; Alice B Kornblith; Ellen R Gaynor; Mindy Ann Bowers; Gretchen S Gatti; Mark S Kaminski; Harry Paul Erba; Ting Wang; Jihye Yoon; Oliver W Press; Richard I Fisher Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2016-07-12 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Karon F Cook; Benjamin D Schalet; Michael A Kallen; Joshua P Rutsohn; David Cella Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-04-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ashley M Nelson; Brian D Gonzalez; Heather S L Jim; Julie M Cessna; Steven K Sutton; Brent J Small; Mayer N Fishman; Babu Zachariah; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Briana N Sprague; Xiaonan Zhu; Rebecca C Ehrenkranz; Qu Tian; Theresa A Gmelin; Nancy W Glynn; Andrea L Rosso; Caterina Rosano Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-07-23 Impact factor: 5.562