Skip to main content

The perceived constraints subscale of the Sense of Mastery Scale: dimensionality and measurement invariance

Quality of Life Research volume 26, pages 127–138 (2017)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

A number of studies have reported differences in sense of mastery and perceived control across different subgroups. Yet, few have examined measurement invariance, an important prerequisite for valid comparisons. This study examines the factorial structure and measurement invariance of the perceived constraints (PC) facet of Pearlin and Schooler’s (1981) Sense of Mastery Scale (SM) which is a commonly used short form of the widely used SM scale.

Methods

Confirmatory factor analyses using AMOS and Mplus were conducted to explore dimensionality and test for measurement invariance in factor structure, factor loadings, intercepts, and residual variances across gender, age, education, income, and employment status in a large (N = 19,858), nationally representative sample of Norwegian males and females aged 16–100.

Results

The data supported a modified unidimensional model specifying correlations between the error terms of items 4 and 5, or possibly two highly correlated dimensions (r = 0.90). Metric invariance of the scale was shown for age, education, and employment, whereas invariance at the strong and strict levels was shown for gender and income. Partial invariance at the strong level was shown for age.

Conclusions

This Norwegian study supported a modified unidimensional structure for the abbreviated SM scale. Invariance testing indicated that comparisons across genders and income levels are unproblematic, whilst comparing mean scores across education and employment status is not justified. Latent, but not sum score means are comparable across age. Future studies using all 7 items of SM scale should provide more information on dimensionality and measurement invariance.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. Data are distributed and made available in anonymous form by Norwegian Social Science Data Services (NSD). Neither Statistics Norway nor NSD are responsible for the analysis of data and interpretations of results presented in this study.

Abbreviations

AMOS:

Analysis of moment structures

CFA:

Confirmatory factor analysis

CFI:

Comparative fit index

CI:

Confidence interval

EM:

Expectation–maximization

ML:

Maximum likelihood

PC:

Perceived constraints

RMSEA:

Root-mean-square error of approximation

SE:

Standard error

SM:

Sense of mastery

SN:

Statistics Norway

SPSS:

Statistical Package for Social Sciences

ADF:

Asymptotically distribution-free

References

  1. Pearlin, L. I., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19(1), 2–21.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Eriksson, M., & Lindström, B. (2006). Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scale and the relation with health: A systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 60(5), 376–381. doi:10.1136/jech.2005.041616.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Smith, T., & Meyers, L. (1997). The sense of coherence: Its relationship to personality, stress, and health measures. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12(2), 513.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Lachman, M. E., & Weaver, S. L. (1998). The sense of control as a moderator of social class differences in health and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(3), 763–773.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Shanahan, M. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2004). Developmental properties of transactional models: The case of life events and mastery from adolescence to young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 16(04), 1095–1117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Pearlin, L. I., Nguyen, K. B., Schieman, S., & Milkie, M. A. (2007). The life-course origins of mastery among older people. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 48(2), 164–179.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Aneshensel, C. S. (2015). Sociological inquiry into mental health: The legacy of leonard I. Pearlin. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 56(2), 166–178.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Korkeila, J., Kovess, V., Dalgard, O. S., Madianos, M., Salize, H. J., & Lehtinen, V. (2007). Piloting mental health indicators for Europe. Journal of Mental Health, 16(3), 401–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Korkeila, J., Lehtinen, V., Bijl, R., Dalgard, O. S., Kovess, V., Morgan, A., et al. (2003). Establishing a set of mental health indicators for Europe. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 31(6), 451–459.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Wilkins, K., & Beaudet, M. P. (1998). Work stress and health. Health Reports, 10(3), 47–62.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Chen, Y. L., Hsiung, P. C., Chung, L., Chen, S. C., & Pan, A. W. (2013). Psychometric properties of the Mastery Scale-Chinese version: applying classical test theory and Rasch analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 20(6), 404–411. doi:10.3109/11038128.2013.838999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Eklund, M., Erlandsson, L. K., & Hagell, P. (2012). Psychometric properties of a Swedish version of the Pearlin Mastery Scale in people with mental illness and healthy people. Nordic Journal of Psychiatry, 66(6), 380–388. doi:10.3109/08039488.2012.656701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Pearlin, L. I., Schieman, S., Fazio, E. M., & Meersman, S. C. (2005). Stress, health, and the life course: Some conceptual perspectives. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 46(2), 205–219.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Dalgard, O. S., Mykletun, A., Rognerud, M., Johansen, R., & Zahl, P. H. (2007). Education, sense of mastery and mental health: Results from a nation wide health monitoring study in Norway. BMC Psychiatry, 7, 20. doi:10.1186/1471-244X-7-20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (2007). Life course trajectories of perceived control and their relationship to education. American Journal of Sociology, 112(5), 1339–1382. doi:10.1086/511800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Education, personal control, lifestyle and health: A human capital hypothesis. Research on Aging, 20(4), 415–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2002). Age and the gender gap in the sense of personal control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(2), 125–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2013). The sense of personal control: Social structural causes and emotional consequences. In Handbook of the sociology of mental health, chap 19, (pp. 379–402). Springer.

  19. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2010). Why education is the key to socioeconomic differentials in health. In C. E. Bird, P. Conrad, & A. M. Fremont (Eds.), Handbook of medical sociology (6th ed., pp. 33–51). Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schieman, S., & Turner, H. A. (1998). Age, disability, and the sense of mastery. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39(3), 169–186.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Dong, X., Zhang, M., & Simon, M. A. (2014). Self-mastery among Chinese older adults in the greater Chicago area. AIMS Medical Science, 1(1), 57–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Wolinsky, F. D., Wyrwich, K. W., Babu, A. N., Kroenke, K., & Tierney, W. M. (2003). Age, aging, and the sense of control among older adults: A longitudinal reconsideration. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(4), S212–S220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Lachman, M. E. (1986). Locus of control in aging research: A case for multidimensional and domain-specific assessment. Psychology and Aging, 1(1), 34–40.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lachman, M. E., & Firth, K. (2004). The adaptive value of feeling in control during midlife. In How healthy are we, chap 11 (pp. 320–349).

  25. Reker, G. T., Peacock, E. J., & Wong, P. T. P. (1987). Meaning and purpose in life and well-being—A life-span perspective. Journals of Gerontology, 42(1), 44–49.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (1999). Psychosocial resources and the SES-health relationship. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 896, 210–225.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1992). Households, employment, and the sense of control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 217–235.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pearlin, L. I., Lieberman, M. A., Menaghan, E. G., & Mullan, J. T. (1981). The stress process. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 22(4), 337–356.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Bonacchi, A., Miccinesi, G., Galli, S., Chiesi, F., Martire, M., Guazzini, M., et al. (2012). The dimensionality of Antonovsky’s sense of coherence scales. An investigation with Italian samples. TPM: Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 19(2), 115–134

    Google Scholar 

  31. Gadalla, T. M. (2009). Determinants, correlates and mediators of psychological distress: A longitudinal study. Social Science and Medicine, 68(12), 2199–2205. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2009.03.040.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Ron, P., & Rovner, M. (2014). The relationship between self-esteem, sense of mastery and humor as personal resources and crisis-coping strategies in three generations. Advances in Aging Research, 3(2), 160–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Arbuckle, J. (2008). Amos 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Incorporated.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9(4), 466.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Bollen, K. A. (2014). Structural equations with latent variables. Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Ory, D. T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2010). The impact of non-normality, sample size and estimation technique on goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation modeling: evidence from ten empirical models of travel behavior. Quality & Quantity, 44(3), 427–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with nonnormal variables (pp. 56–75). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hooper, D., Coughlan, J., & Mullen, M. (2008). Structural equation modelling: guidelines for determining model fit. Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods, 6(1), 53–60.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Hirschfeld, G., & von Brachel, R. (2014). Multiple-Group confirmatory factor analysis in R–A tutorial in measurement invariance with continuous and ordinal indicators. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 19(7), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Desa, D. (2014). Evaluating measurement invariance of TALIS 2013 complex scales. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 103. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  42. Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Wu, A. D., Li, Z., & Zumbo, B. D. (2007). Decoding the meaning of factorial invariance and updating the practice of multi-group confirmatory factor analysis: A demonstration with TIMSS data. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 12(3), 1–26.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Meade, A. W., Johnson, E. C., & Braddy, P. W. (2008). Power and sensitivity of alternative fit indices in tests of measurement invariance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(3), 568–592. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.3.568.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of measurement invariance in the context of large-scale international surveys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Matud, M. P. (2004). Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(7), 1401–1415. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.01.010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Stein, J. A., & Nyamathi, A. (1999). Gender differences in relationships among stress, coping, and health risk behaviors in impoverished, minority populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 26(1), 141–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tamres, L. K., Janicki, D., & Helgeson, V. S. (2002). Sex differences in coping behavior: A meta-analytic review and an examination of relative coping. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(1), 2–30. doi:10.1207/S15327957pspr0601_1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups. Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology, 9(1), 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Pearlin, L. I., & Skaff, M. M. (1996). Stress and the life course: A paradigmatic alliance. Gerontologist, 36(2), 239–247.

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). Welfare states in transition: National adaptations in global economies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Fenger, M. (2007). Welfare regimes in Central and Eastern Europe: Incorporating post-communist countries in a welfare regime typology. Contemporary Issues and Ideas in Social Sciences, 3(2), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. Mental and Physical Health, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, PB 4404, NO-0403, Nydalen, Oslo, Norway

    Jocelyne Clench-Aas, Ragnhild Bang Nes & Leif Edvard Aarø

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Ragnhild Bang Nes

Authors
  1. Jocelyne Clench-Aas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ragnhild Bang Nes
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leif Edvard Aarø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jocelyne Clench-Aas.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Clench-Aas, J., Nes, R.B. & Aarø, L.E. The perceived constraints subscale of the Sense of Mastery Scale: dimensionality and measurement invariance. Qual Life Res 26, 127–138 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1359-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-016-1359-6

Keywords

  • Perceived control
  • Gender
  • Age
  • Education
  • Income
  • Employment
  • Socioeconomic status