The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures
We propose the application of a bifactor model for exploring the dimensional structure of an item response matrix, and for handling multidimensionality.
We argue that a bifactor analysis can complement traditional dimensionality investigations by: (a) providing an evaluation of the distortion that may occur when unidimensional models are fit to multidimensional data, (b) allowing researchers to examine the utility of forming subscales, and, (c) providing an alternative to non-hierarchical multidimensional models for scaling individual differences.
To demonstrate our arguments, we use responses (N = 1,000 Medicaid recipients) to 16 items in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS©2.0) survey.
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic and item response theory models (unidimensional, multidimensional, and bifactor) were estimated.
CAHPS© items are consistent with both unidimensional and multidimensional solutions. However, the bifactor model revealed that the overwhelming majority of common variance was due to a general factor. After controlling for the general factor, subscales provided little measurement precision.
The bifactor model provides a valuable tool for exploring dimensionality related questions. In the Discussion, we describe contexts where a bifactor analysis is most productively used, and we contrast bifactor with multidimensional IRT models (MIRT). We also describe implications of bifactor models for IRT applications, and raise some limitations.
KeywordsBifactor model Unidimensionality assumption Item response theory Multidimensional item response model Health outcomes measurement
- 1.Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 4.Bjorner, J. B., Kosinksi, M., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2003c). Calibration of an item pool for assessing the burden of headaches: An application of item response theory to the Headache Impact Test (HITTM) to the metric of traditional scales. Quality of Life Research, 12, 913–933.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Hambleton, R. K. (2000). Emergence of item response modeling in instrument development and data analysis. Medical Care, 38(Suppl. 9), 60–65.Google Scholar
- 7.Hays, R. D., Morales, L. S., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory and health outcomes measurement in the 21st century. Medical Care, 38(Suppl. 2), 28–42.Google Scholar
- 8.Reise, S. P. (2004). Item response theory and its applications for cancer outcomes measurement. In J. Lipscomb, C. C. Gotay, & C. F. Snyder (Eds.), The cancer outcomes measurement working group (COMWG): An NCI initiative to improve the science of outcomes measurement in cancer (pp. 425–444). Boston, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 11.McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 14.Agency for Healthcare Policy and Research. (1999). Consumer Assessment of Health Plans Study – CAHPS©2.0 survey and reporting kit. Rockville, Maryland: Author (AHPR).Google Scholar
- 18.Reitan, R. M., & Wolfson, D. (1996). Theoretical, methodological, and validational bases of the Halstein-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. In I. Grant & K. M. Adams (Eds.), Neuropsychological assessment of neuropsychiatric disorder. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- 19.Cattell, R. B. (1966). Psychological theory and scientific method. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology (pp. 1–18). Chicago: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
- 20.Ackerman, T. A. (1994). Using multidimensional item response theory to understand what items and tests are measuring. Applied Measurement in Education, 18, 225–278.Google Scholar
- 24.McDonald, R. P. (1981). The dimensionality of test and items. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 34, 100–117.Google Scholar
- 39.Waller, N. G. (2001). MicroFACT 2.0: A microcomputer factor analysis program for ordered polytomous data and mainframe size problems [computer program]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.Google Scholar
- 40.Wolff, H., & Preising, K. (2005). Exploring item and higher order factor structure with the Schmid-Leiman solution: Syntax codes for SPSS and SAS. Behavioral Research Methods, 37, 48–58.Google Scholar
- 41.Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Mplus user’s guide [version 3; computer program]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.Google Scholar
- 43.Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika Monograph Supplement, 34, 100–114.Google Scholar
- 45.Wood, R., Wilson, D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S., Muraki, E., & Bock, R. D. (2003). TESTFACT: Test scoring, item statistics, and item factor analysis [version 4; computer program]. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.Google Scholar
- 47.Swygert, K. A., McLeod, L. D., & Thissen, D. (2001). Factor analysis for items or testlets scored in more than two categories. In D. Thissen & H. Wainer (Eds.), Test scoring (pp. 217–250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- 50.Li, Y. H., & Lissitz, R. W. (2000). An evaluation of the accuracy of multidimensional IRT linking. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24, 115–138.Google Scholar
- 56.Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1995). LISREL 8 users’s reference guide [computer program]. Chicago: Scientific Software.Google Scholar