From two-dimensional to three-dimensional curiosity: A reanalysis of depth-breadth-factor model

Liste des Pensées Obsédantes (LPO) en version islandaise : étude des propriétés psychométriques avec une analyse factorielle confirmatoire

BackgroundThe conceptualization of negative symptoms has been refined in the past decades. Two-factor model comprising Motivation and Pleasure (MAP) and Emotional Expressivity (EE), five-factor model representing five domains of negative symptoms and second-order five-factor model incorporating the two-factor and five-factor models (Anhedonia, Asociality and Avolition regressed on MAP; Blunted Affect and Alogia regressed on EE) have been suggested as latent structure of negative symptoms. In most studies, the item “Lack of Normal Distress” in the Brief Negative Symptom Scale (BNSS) did not fit well in factor models. Nevertheless, the reported correlation and item-total correlation of Distress with other negative symptom domains and BNSS items were not negligible. Emotion deficit was also discussed as a part of negative symptoms conceptualization. As a single item may not be sufficient to represent an underlying construct that is potentially abstract and complex, the Schedule for the Deficit Syndrome (SDS) which comprises “Diminished Emotional Range” that is conceptually relevant to the BNSS Distress was employed. The study aimed to reexamine the conceptualization of negative symptoms by examining the model fit of several models when BNSS Distress and SDS Emotion (EMO) were included in the models using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA).MethodsTwo-hundred and seventy-four schizophrenia outpatients aged 21–65 were assessed on the BNSS and SDS. In the two-factor models, Restricted Affect, Diminished Emotional Range and Poverty of Speech in SDS and all items in BNSS Blunted Affect and Alogia subscales were regressed on EE, Curbing of Interests, Diminished Sense of Purpose and Diminished Social Drive in SDS and all items in BNSS Anhedonia, Asociality and Avolition subscales were regressed on MAP, without EMO, or with EMO regressed on either EE or MAP. Five-factor models and second-order five-factor models were examined, with or without EMO. Lastly, a six-factor model with EMO manifested by the sixth factor and second-order six-factor models in which EMO was regressed on either EE or MAP were tested. Root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) <0.08, comparative fit index (CFI) >0.95, the Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) >0.95, and weighted root-mean-square residual (WRMR) <1.0 indicate good model fit. CFAs were conducted using Mplus version 7.4.ResultsThe two-factor models did not yield adequate fit indices. Five-factor model and second-order five-factor model without EMO had good model fit; five-factor model: RMSEA=0.056 (0.044–0.068), CFI=0.996, TFI=0.995, WRMR=0.718; second-order five-factor model: RMSEA=0.049 (0.036–0.061), CFI=0.997, TFI=0.996, WRMR=0.758. When EMO was included as indicator in one of the factors in the five-factor models, only the model in which EMO was regressed on Alogia yielded adequate fit. Similarly, in the second-order five-factor models, adequate fit indices were observed only when EMO was regressed on Alogia and Blunted Affect. The six-factor model fitted the data well, RMSEA=0.053 (0.042–0.064), CFI=0.996, TFI=0.995, WRMR=0.711. Second-order six-factor model with EMO regressed on EE yielded better model fit than MAP, RMSEA=0.050 (0.039–0.061), CFI=0.996, TFI=0.995, WRMR=0.849.DiscussionIn line with previous studies, five-factor and second-order five-factor models without EMO fitted the data well. When EMO was included, a six-factor model and a second-order six-factor model in which the sixth factor was regressed on EE showed good model fit. Emotion, motivation and behavior are intertwined. Our results showed that diminished emotion may also be one of the components of negative symptoms, which had higher association with EE than MAP.

BackgroundIndividuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (SSDs) often suffer social cognitive deficits, which are associated with functional outcome. These include lower-level “simulation” processes (emotion recognition), thought to be subserved by a frontoparietal circuit, and higher-level “mentalizing” processes (theory of mind), involving cortical midline and lateral temporal regions. Despite evidence supporting the distinction of these constructs, little work has focused on the factor structure of social cognition. In schizophrenia, factor analytic results have been inconsistent, likely due to task and analytic approach variability, and inadequate sample sizes. Further, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) has not been used to compare multiple models across people with SSDs and healthy controls. Thus, our objective was to elucidate the factor structure of social cognition across a large group of people with SSDs and healthy controls. We hypothesized that a two-factor model, including simulation and mentalizing factors, would demonstrate the best fit across participants. We also expected social cognitive and neurocognitive factors to load on separate respective higher-order factors, and social cognition to mediate the relationship between neurocognition and clinical and functional outcome measures.MethodsBehavioural data was collected from 164 participants with SSDs and 102 healthy controls across three sites. Participants completed four tasks including measures of social cognition, ranging from basic emotion recognition to complex mental state inference. Participants also completed measures of functional outcome, symptom ratings, and the MATRICS Consensus Cognitive Battery. CFAs were conducted to test social cognitive models, as well as models of social cognition and neurocognition, and multi-group CFA was used to test measurement invariance between patients and controls.ResultsAs predicted, a two-factor (simulation, mentalizing) model fit the social cognitive data well across participants with SSDs and healthy controls (RMSEA = .010, CFI = 1.00). This model also fit significantly better than a one-factor model (p < .001). Further, measurement invariance testing revealed factor structure invariance, loading invariance, and partial intercept invariance between groups, allowing for between-group comparisons. Participants with SSDs showed lower scores than controls for both simulation and mentalizing factors (p < .001), and scores on both factors correlated significantly with symptom ratings and functional outcome measures. Including neurocognitive data, a higher-order two-factor (social cognition, neurocognition) model fit the data well (RMSEA = .047, CFI = .971), and showed significantly better fit than a one- or two-factor model (p < .001). Lastly, social cognition was found to mediate the relationship between neurocognition and negative symptoms, as well as social functioning and quality of life measures (p < .05).DiscussionOur results provide evidence that social cognition includes lower- and higher-level dimensions across both individuals with SSDs and healthy controls. They also suggest that both aspects are associated with clinical and functional outcome indices, and act as a mediator between neurocognition and these measures. This provides support for distinguishing lower- and higher-level social cognition between and across people with SSDs and healthy controls, and suggests that they may indeed have partially distinct underlying mechanisms. Further, results confirm the importance of social cognition as it relates to clinical and functional outcomes, and thereby as a potential treatment target for patients with SSDs.

This was an investigation of the dimensionality of oral and written language to test the hypothesis that a two-factor model with sound/word and sentence/discourse language levels would best fit language and literacy data for a population-based sample in the school-age years. A stratified secondary data set of 1,500 participants was drawn randomly from a larger nationally representative U.S. data set (N = 1,853) gathered during standardization of the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills. A sample of 254 students with prior diagnoses of language and literacy disorders (LLD) was drawn from the full data set. Confirmatory factor analysis was used to compare the hypothesized two-factor model with other theoretically possible models. The hypothesized two-factor language-levels model had an acceptable-to-good fit to the full data set, as did the three-factor model, with verbal memory added. High interfactor correlation between verbal memory and sentence/discourse constructs, as well as a preference for parsimony, led to the acceptance of the two-factor model as best. This language-levels model had a good fit to the data at ages 8-11 years, and an excellent fit at ages 12-18 years, but only a poor fit for ages 6-7 years (yet still better than other two-factor or unitary models). It had a reasonable fit for students with LLD, although the three-factor model fit their data slightly better. Oral and written language abilities during the school-age years are best explained by a two-factor model with sound/word and sentence/discourse language levels and memory as a contributing factor. Implications for identifying and treating language and literacy disorders as multidimensional rather than categorical are discussed.

Two Factor Structures Possible for the FACIT-Sp in Patients With Heart Failure

The Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) are two widely used instruments for assessing anxiety and depression, respectively, but no studies have examined their psychometric properties among individuals with substance use disorders. This study's objectives were to (a) validate the factor structures, examining single and two-factor models, and (b) examine measurement invariance across age and sex. Inpatients with substance use disorders (N = 1,220, 70.9% male, Mage = 41 years) completed the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 as part of routine measurement-based care at admission. Confirmatory factor analysis assessed one-factor and two-factor latent models for the GAD-7 and PHQ-9. Confirmatory factor analysis revealed that in both cases, the one-factor structures exhibited a moderately good fit, with acceptable values for two of four fit indices, but the two-factor structure (with item clusters reflecting cognitive and somatic features) met acceptable fit for all indices. The two-factor models were also invariant across age (examined using quartiles) and sex (female, male). These findings generally support the psychometric validity of the GAD-7 and PHQ-9 in patients with substance use disorders, but particularly a two-factor model that separates cognitive from somatic features. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

Evaluation and comparison of the factor structure of the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey (MOS-SSS) using both confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with two samples of people living with HIV/AIDS in China. Secondary analyses were conducted with data from two comparable samples of 320 people living with HIV/AIDS from the same hospital using the same inclusion criteria. The first sample of 120 was collected in 2006, and the second sample of 200 was collected in 2012. For each sample, CFA was first performed on the original four-factor structure to check model fit, followed by EFA to explore other factor structures and a subsequent CFA for model fit statistics to be compared to the original four-factor CFA. In both samples, CFA on the originally hypothesized four-factor structure yielded an acceptable model fit. The EFA yielded a two-factor solution in both samples, with different items included in each factor for the two samples. Comparison of CFA on the a priori four-factor structure and the new two-factor structure in both samples indicated that both factor structures were of acceptable model fit, with the four-factor model performing slightly better than the two-factor model. Factor structure of the MOS-SSS is method-dependent, with CFA supporting a four-factor structure, while EFA yielded a two-factor structure in two separate samples. We need to be careful in selecting the analytic method when applying the MOS-SSS to various samples and choose the factor structure that best fits the theoretical model.

The purpose of this study was to determine the best model fit among the six models in the Korean version of Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (K-PANAS). Therefore, this study compared and analyzed the dimensional structure of this schedule for Korean college students. Specifically, the model fitness of six models, which are under debate, were compared: a single model for K-PANAS, a two-factor model (PA&amp;NA) without any factor correlation, a three-factor model (PA, NA-Afraid, NA-Upset), a two-factor bifactor model, a three-factor bifactor model, and a three-factor bifactor model with error correlation. A total of 875 samples were analyzed, and the results show that best model fit is the three-factor bifactor model with error correlation. We named the general factor of the bifactor model “activation (or arousal).” This findings of this study will provide a richer explanation of emotions for researchers analyzing emotional activation (or arousal), a general factor of emotion, PA, and NA future studies that use PANAS.

The relative fit of one-factor, two-factor, and six-factor models of the English version of the Life Regard Index-Revised was investigated using confirmatory factor analysis on a sample of 464 university students. The results indicated that the six-factor model fit modestly better than both the one-factor and two-factor models, although the difference in fit between the three models was relatively small. Implications of the results are discussed and recommendations for the use of the Life Regard Index-Revised as a measure of personal meaning are provided.

Le questionnaire d’alexithymie pour enfants (QAE) : étude sur une population clinique de 105 adolescents hospitalisés en pédopsychiatrie

E002 Positive and negative experiences of parents and speech therapists on the effects of paediatric cochlear implantation and subsequent rehabilitation

Studying grit's measurement helps to understand this psychological phenomenon associated with success. Grit-S structures of one-factor and two-factor have been reported in the literature, but there is a lack of reports based on Item Response Theory (IRT). Therefore, two objectives were proposed: to determine the factorial structure of the Spanish version of the Grit-S and explore the instrument through a Multidimentional Item Response Theory (MIRT) analysis. A nonprobabilistic sample of 899 subjects (41.0% female) was evaluated. The 8 items grit scale was used. The Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) showed that the two-factor model obtained a good fit (CFI = 0.97, TLI = 0.95, RMSEA [90%CI] = 0.08 [0.07, 0.10]) unlike the one-dimensional model. An exploratory comparison analysis by MIRT also revealed that the two-factor model performed better (p &lt; 0.001). Consequently, a confirmatory analysis determined an adequate fit of the two-factor model (C2 = 45.4; RMSEA [90%CI] = 0.05 [0.04 - 0.07]; TLI = 0.97; CFI = 0.99). Multidimensional discrimination values were within the expected range (&gt; 1; &gt; 1.5), although item 2 had low discrimination. Regarding difficulty, all items had a monotonic increase. The two-factor model fits the data by both CFA and MIRT. Both complementary analyzes demonstrate the potential of Grit-S to measure latent consistency and perseverance factors.

The dimensions of library service quality: A confirmatory factor analysis of the LibQUAL + instrument

Using Confirmatory Factor Analysis to Evaluate Construct Validity of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI)

The current study sought to investigate the two-factor model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) symptoms in two distinct groups: emerging adults (N = 226; aged 18–25 years) and later adults (N = 236; aged 26–65 years) in a large community sample. Participants provided self-ratings of ADHD symptoms (inattention [IA], hyperactivity [HY], and impulsivity [IM]) using the Current Symptom Scale. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was employed to examine the applicability of the two-factor ADHD model (factors for IA and HY/IM), while multiple-group CFA was used to assess measurement invariance across the two groups. The results indicated at least adequate support for the two-factor model. Additionally, there was strong support for measurement invariance across the two groups. Moreover, the latent factor mean scores for IA and HY/IM were higher in the emerging adults’ group. The findings hold both theoretical and practical implications, which are discussed in detail.