Testing the measurement invariance of the University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale short form across four diagnostic subgroups
- 446 Downloads
The University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale (UW-SES) was originally developed for people with multiple sclerosis (MS) and spinal cord injury (SCI). This study evaluates the measurement invariance of the 6-item short form of the UW-SES across four disability subgroups. Evidence of measurement invariance would extend the UW-SES for use in two additional diagnostic groups: muscular dystrophy (MD) and post-polio syndrome (PPS).
Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis was used to evaluate successive levels of measurement invariance of the 6-item short form, the UW-SES: (a) configural invariance, i.e., equivalent item-factor structures between groups; (b) metric invariance, i.e., equivalent unstandardized factor loadings between groups; and (c) scalar invariance, i.e., equivalent item intercepts between groups. Responses from the four groups with different diagnostic disorders were compared: MD (n = 172), MS (n = 868), PPS (n = 225), and SCI (n = 242).
The results of this study support that the most rigorous form of invariance (i.e., scalar) holds for the 6-item short form of the UW-SES across the four diagnostic subgroups.
The current study suggests that the 6-item short form of the UW-SES has the same meaning across the four diagnostic subgroups. Thus, the 6-item short form is validated for people with MD, MS, PPS, and SCI.
KeywordsMeasurement invariance Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis Self-efficacy Muscular dystrophy Multiple sclerosis Post-polio syndrome Spinal cord injury
Differential item functioning
Item response theory
Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis
Spinal cord injury
The University of Washington Self-Efficacy Scale
The contents of this publication were developed in part under grants from the U.S. Department of Education, National Institute of Disability and Rehabilitation Research, Grant Numbers H133B080024 and H133B080025. However, those contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the U.S. Department of Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government. This research was also supported in part by a grant from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under Award Number 5U01AR052171. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
- 1.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social-cognitive view. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
- 2.Rothrock, N. E., Hays, R. D., Spritzer, K., Yount, S. E., Riley, W., & Cella, D. (2010). Relative to the general US population, chronic diseases are associated with poorer health-related quality of life as measured by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1195–1204.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 12.Jerusalem, M., & Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (pp. 195–213). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.Google Scholar
- 14.Milsap, R. E. (2012). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- 19.Noonan, V. K., Cook, K. F., Bamer, A. M., Choi, S. W., Kim, J., & Amtmann, D. (2012). Measuring fatigue in persons with multiple sclerosis: Creating a crosswalk between the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale and the PROMIS Fatigue Short Form. Quality of Life Research, 21(7), 1123–1133.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Little, T. D., Card, N. A., Slegers, D. W., & Ledford, E. C. (2007). Representing contextual effects in multiple-group MACS models. In T. D. Little, J. A. Bovaird, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (pp. 121–147). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 24.Widaman, K. F., & Reise, S. P. (1997). Exploring the measurement invariance of psychological instruments: Applications in the substance use domain. In K. J. Bryant, M. Windle, & S. G. West (Eds.), The science of prevention (pp. 281–324). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
- 25.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998–2013). Mplus User’s Guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 26.Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- 27.Browne, M., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. London: Sage.Google Scholar
- 28.Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar