Literature DB >> 9928978

Statistical methodology: VIII. Using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in emergency medicine research.

F B Bryant1, P R Yarnold, E A Michelson.   

Abstract

How many underlying characteristics (or factors) does a set of survey questions measure? When subjects answer a set of self-report questions, is it more appropriate to analyze the questions individually, to pool responses to all of the questions to form one global score, or to combine subsets of related questions to define multiple underlying factors? Factor analysis is the statistical method of choice for answering such questions. When researchers have no idea beforehand about what factors may underlie a set of questions, they use exploratory factor analysis to infer the best explanatory model from observed data "after the fact." If, on the other hand, researchers have a hypothesis beforehand about the underlying factors, then they can use confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to evaluate how well this model explains the observed data and to compare the model's goodness-of-fit with that of other competing models. This article describes the basic rules and building blocks of CFA: what it is, how it works, and how researchers can use it. The authors begin by placing CFA in the context of a common research application-namely, assessing quality of medical outcome using a patient satisfaction survey. They then explain, within this research context, how CFA is used to evaluate the explanatory power of a factor model and to decide which model or models best represent the data. The information that must be specified in the analysis to estimate a CFA model is highlighted, and the statistical assumptions and limitations of this analysis are noted. Analyzing the responses of 1,614 emergency medical patients to a commonly-used "patient satisfaction" questionnaire, the authors demonstrate how to: 1) compare competing factor-models to find the best-fitting model; 2) modify models to improve their goodness-of-fit; 3) test hypotheses about relationships among the underlying factors; 4) examine mean differences in "factor scores"; and 5) refine an existing instrument into a more streamlined form that has fewer questions and better conceptual and statistical precision than the original instrument. Finally, the role of CFA in developing new instruments is discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 9928978     DOI: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.1999.tb00096.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Acad Emerg Med        ISSN: 1069-6563            Impact factor:   3.451


  6 in total

1.  Comparison of health-related quality of life measures for chronic renal failure: quality of well-being scale, short-form-6D, and the kidney disease quality of life instrument.

Authors:  Karen L Saban; Kevin T Stroupe; Fred B Bryant; Domenic J Reda; Margaret M Browning; Denise M Hynes
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2008-09-13       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Human attitudes towards herpetofauna: the influence of folklore and negative values on the conservation of amphibians and reptiles in Portugal.

Authors:  Luis Mp Ceríaco
Journal:  J Ethnobiol Ethnomed       Date:  2012-02-08       Impact factor: 2.733

3.  Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of WHOQOL-HIV Bref among people living with HIV/AIDS in Pakistan.

Authors:  Ali Ahmed; Muhammad Saqlain; Nasim Akhtar; Furqan Hashmi; Ali Blebil; Juman Dujaili; Malik Muhammad Umair; Allah Bukhsh
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 3.186

4.  Fear of Return to Sport Scale (FRESS): a new instrument for use in injured professional or recreational athletes in rehabilitation.

Authors:  Artur Eduardo Kalatakis-Dos-Santos; Cid André Fidelis de Paula Gomes; André Pontes-Silva; Leticia Padilha Mendes; Gabriel de Oliveira Simões; Maria Cláudia Gonçalves; Flavio de Oliveira Pires; Daniela Bassi-Dibai; Almir Vieira Dibai-Filho
Journal:  Sport Sci Health       Date:  2022-08-05

5.  National survey focusing on the crucial information needs of intensive care charge nurses and intensivists: same goal, different demands.

Authors:  Heljä Lundgrén-Laine; Elina Kontio; Tommi Kauko; Heikki Korvenranta; Jari Forsström; Sanna Salanterä
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2013-01-29       Impact factor: 2.796

6.  Cross-Cultural Validation of the High Blood Pressure Health Literacy Scale in a Chinese Community.

Authors:  Qinghua Zhang; Feifei Huang; Zaoling Liu; Na Zhang; Tanmay Mahapatra; Weiming Tang; Yang Lei; Yali Dai; Songyuan Tang; Jingping Zhang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.