BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic growth (PTG) was conceptualized as consisting of changes in three broad dimensions; Self, interpersonal relationships, and philosophy of life. The aim of this study is to analyze the factor structure of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) in a sample of parents whose children had survived a critical hospitalization in order to consider the structural validity of the PTGI scores for this population and to report our understanding of PTG as a construct. METHODS: 143 parents completed the PTGI 6 months after their child’s discharge from pediatric intensive care. The PTGI scores’ factor structure was studied through confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of different models supported in prior research, followed by an exploratory principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: Prior models tested through CFA did not provide an acceptable fit for our data. Through exploratory PCA, three components emerged that explained 73.41% of the variance; personal growth, interpersonal growth and transpersonal growth. Subsequent CFAs on this three-factor model showed that a bifactor model had the best fit. CONCLUSION: Although the PTGI scores have shown slightly different factor structures among diverse populations, the three dimensions initially theorized appear to be robust, which supports the structural validity of its scores.
BACKGROUND:Posttraumatic growth (PTG) was conceptualized as consisting of changes in three broad dimensions; Self, interpersonal relationships, and philosophy of life. The aim of this study is to analyze the factor structure of the Posttraumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI) in a sample of parents whose children had survived a critical hospitalization in order to consider the structural validity of the PTGI scores for this population and to report our understanding of PTG as a construct. METHODS: 143 parents completed the PTGI 6 months after their child’s discharge from pediatric intensive care. The PTGI scores’ factor structure was studied through confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) of different models supported in prior research, followed by an exploratory principal component analysis (PCA). RESULTS: Prior models tested through CFA did not provide an acceptable fit for our data. Through exploratory PCA, three components emerged that explained 73.41% of the variance; personal growth, interpersonal growth and transpersonal growth. Subsequent CFAs on this three-factor model showed that a bifactor model had the best fit. CONCLUSION: Although the PTGI scores have shown slightly different factor structures among diverse populations, the three dimensions initially theorized appear to be robust, which supports the structural validity of its scores.
Authors: Cristina D Pollari; Jennifer Brite; Robert M Brackbill; Lisa M Gargano; Shane W Adams; Pninit Russo-Netzer; Jonathan Davidov; Victoria Banyard; James E Cone Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2020-12-25 Impact factor: 3.390