Matching Items (2)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: psychology
Description
The use of bias indicators in psychological measurement has been contentious, with some researchers questioning whether they actually suppress or moderate the ability of substantive psychological indictors to discriminate (McGrath, Mitchell, Kim, & Hough, 2010). Bias indicators on the MMPI-2-RF (F-r, Fs, FBS-r, K-r, and L-r) were tested for suppression or moderation of the ability of the RC1 and NUC scales to discriminate between Epileptic Seizures (ES) and Non-epileptic Seizures (NES, a conversion disorder that is often misdiagnosed as ES). RC1 and NUC had previously been found to be the best scales on the MMPI-2-RF to differentiate between ES and NES, with optimal cut scores occurring at a cut score of 65 for RC1 (classification rate of 68%) and 85 for NUC (classification rate of 64%; Locke et al., 2010). The MMPI-2-RF was completed by 429 inpatients on the Epilepsy Monitoring Unit (EMU) at the Scottsdale Mayo Clinic Hospital, all of whom had confirmed diagnoses of ES or NES. Moderated logistic regression was used to test for moderation and logistic regression was used to test for suppression. Classification rates of RC1 and NUC were calculated at different bias level indicators to evaluate clinical utility for diagnosticians. No moderation was found. Suppression was found for F-r, Fs, K-r, and L-r with RC1, and for all variables with NUC. For F-r and Fs, the optimal RC1 and NUC cut scores increased at higher levels of bias, but tended to decrease at higher levels of K-r, L-r, and FBS-r. K-r provided the greatest suppression for RC1, as well as the greatest increases in classification rates at optimal cut scores, given different levels of bias. It was concluded that, consistent with expectations, taking account of bias indicator suppression on the MMPI-2-RF can improve discrimination of ES and NES. At higher levels of negative impression management, higher cut scores on substantive scales are needed to attain optimal discrimination, whereas at higher levels of positive impression management and FBS-r, lower cut scores are needed. Using these new cut scores resulted in modest improvements in accuracy in discrimination. These findings are consistent with prior research in showing the efficacy of bias indicators, and extend the findings to a psycho-medical context.
ContributorsWershba, Rebecca E (Author) / Lanyon, Richard I (Thesis advisor) / Barrera, Manuel (Committee member) / Karoly, Paul (Committee member) / Millsap, Roger E (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Although the issue of factorial invariance has received increasing attention in the literature, the focus is typically on differences in factor structure across groups that are directly observed, such as those denoted by sex or ethnicity. While establishing factorial invariance across observed groups is a requisite step in making meaningful cross-group comparisons, failure to attend to possible sources of latent class heterogeneity in the form of class-based differences in factor structure has the potential to compromise conclusions with respect to observed groups and may result in misguided attempts at instrument development and theory refinement. The present studies examined the sensitivity of two widely used confirmatory factor analytic model fit indices, the chi-square test of model fit and RMSEA, to latent class differences in factor structure. Two primary questions were addressed. The first of these concerned the impact of latent class differences in factor loadings with respect to model fit in a single sample reflecting a mixture of classes. The second question concerned the impact of latent class differences in configural structure on tests of factorial invariance across observed groups. The results suggest that both indices are highly insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings. Across sample size conditions, models with medium (0.2) sized loading differences were rejected by the chi-square test of model fit at rates just slightly higher than the nominal .05 rate of rejection that would be expected under a true null hypothesis. While rates of rejection increased somewhat when the magnitude of loading difference increased, even the largest sample size with equal class representation and the most extreme violations of loading invariance only had rejection rates of approximately 60%. RMSEA was also insensitive to class-based differences in factor loadings, with mean values across conditions suggesting a degree of fit that would generally be regarded as exceptionally good in practice. In contrast, both indices were sensitive to class-based differences in configural structure in the context of a multiple group analysis in which each observed group was a mixture of classes. However, preliminary evidence suggests that this sensitivity may contingent on the form of the cross-group model misspecification.
ContributorsBlackwell, Kimberly Carol (Author) / Millsap, Roger E (Thesis advisor) / Aiken, Leona S. (Committee member) / Enders, Craig K. (Committee member) / Mackinnon, David P (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011