...
首页> 外文期刊>Indian Journal of Psychological Medicine >The Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Original Brief Intellectual Disability Scale and Alternative Models
【24h】

The Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Original Brief Intellectual Disability Scale and Alternative Models

机译:原始的简短智力残疾量表和替代模型的确认因素分析

获取原文

摘要

Objective: Brief Intellectual Disability Scale (BIDS) is a measure validated for identification of children with intellectual disabilities (IDs) in countries with low disability resources. Following the publication of the exploratory factor analysis of BIDS, the authors have documented the confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of BIDS in this study. Materials and Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted to document the CFA of the BIDS. Primary caregivers ( N = 124) of children with ID were recruited and rated the BIDS. We used alternative fit indices for the evaluation of comparative fit index (CFI) and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) to evaluate the model fit. The 2-index fit strategy was used to select the best factor model. Results: The model fit index for the original 3-factor model and alternative 2-factor and 1-factor models with 9 items of the BIDS was under identified along with another 3-factor, 7-item model. Another 1-factor, 7-item model was identified but did not satisfy the 2-index fit strategy. A short version of the scale with a 2-factor and 7-item model of BIDS presented the best fit indices of CFI = 0.952 and RMSEA = 0.069. Conclusion: Although the original factor structure of BIDS was not confirmed in this study, another alternative a priori model for the construct validity of BIDS was confirmed. Therefore, the BIDS factor structure has been revised, refined, and trimmed to the final 2-factor, 7-item shorter version. Further documentation of the diagnostic accuracy, validity, and reliability of this shorter version of BDI is recommended.
机译:目的:简短的智力残疾量表(BIDS)是一种用于识别残疾资源少的国家中的智力残疾儿童的方法。随着BIDS探索性因子分析的发表,作者已经在本研究中记录了BIDS的证实性因子分析(CFA)。材料和方法:进行了一项前瞻性横截面研究,以记录BIDS的CFA。招募了ID患儿的主要看护人(N = 124),并对BIDS进行了评分。我们使用替代拟合指数来评估比较拟合指数(CFI)和近似均方根误差(RMSEA)来评估模型拟合。使用2指标拟合策略选择最佳因子模型。结果:原始的3因子模型以及具有9个BIDS的替代2因子和1因子模型的模型拟合指数以及另外的3因子7项模型均未得到确定。确定了另一个1因子7项模型,但不满足2指数拟合策略。带有2因子和7项BIDS模型的量表的简短版本显示了CFI = 0.952和RMSEA = 0.069的最佳拟合指数。结论:尽管在本研究中未确认BIDS的原始因子结构,但仍证实了另一种替代BIDS构建有效性的先验模型。因此,BIDS因子结构已被修改,完善和修整为最终的2因子,短7项的版本。建议进一步记录此较短版本的BDI的诊断准确性,有效性和可靠性。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号