Sample selection can substantially affect the solutions generated using exploratory factor analysis. Validation studies of the 12-item World Health Organization (WHO) Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) have generally involved samples in which substantial proportions of people had no, or minimal, disability. With the WHODAS 2.0 oriented towards measuring disability across six life domains (cognition, mobility, self-care, getting along, life activities, and participation in society), performing factor analysis with samples of people with disability may be more appropriate. We determined the influence of the sampling strategy on (a) the number of factors extracted and (b) the factor structure of the WHODAS 2.0.
Using data from adults aged 50+ from the six countries in Wave 1 of the WHO’s longitudinal Study on global AGEing and adult health (SAGE), we repeatedly selected samples (n = 750) using two strategies: (1) simple random sampling that reproduced nationally representative distributions of WHODAS 2.0 summary scores for each country (i.e., positively skewed distributions with many zero scores indicating the absence of disability), and (2) stratified random sampling with weights designed to obtain approximately symmetric distributions of summary scores for each country (i.e. predominantly including people with varying degrees of disability).
Samples with skewed distributions typically produced one-factor solutions, except for the two countries with the lowest percentages of zero scores, in which the majority of samples produced two factors. Samples with approximately symmetric distributions, generally produced two- or three-factor solutions. In the two-factor solutions, the getting along domain items loaded on one factor (commonly with a cognition domain item), with remaining items loading on a second factor. In the three-factor solutions, the getting along and self-care domain items loaded separately on two factors and three other domains (mobility, life activities, and participation in society) on the third factor; the cognition domain items did not load together on any factor.
High percentages of participants with no disability (i.e., zero scores) produce heavily censored data (i.e., floor effects), limiting data heterogeneity and reducing the numbers of factors retained. The WHODAS 2.0 appears to have multiple closely-related factors. Samples of convenience and those collected for other purposes (e.g., general population surveys) would usually be inadequate for validating measures using exploratory factor analysis.
Thurstone LL. The effects of selection in factor analysis. Psychometrika. 1945;10:165–98. CrossRef
Simón A. Effects of selective sampling on a factor analysis. J Gen Psychol. 1979;101:259–64. CrossRef
Comrey AL. Common methodological problems in factor analytic studies. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1978;46:648–59. CrossRef
Üstün TB, Kostanjsek N, Chatterji S, Rehm J. Measuring health and disability: manual for WHO disability assessment schedule (WHODAS 2.0). Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
Sousa RM, Dewey ME, Acosta D, Jotheeswaran AT, Castro-Costa E, Ferri CP, Guerra M, Huang Y, Jacob KS, Pichardo JGR, et al. Measuring disability across cultures — the psychometric properties of the WHODAS II in older people from seven low- and middle-income countries. The 10/66 Dementia Research Group population-based survey. Int J Method Psychiatr Res. 2010;19:1–17. CrossRef
Cattell RB. Personality and mood by questionnaire: a handbook of interpretive theory, psychometrics, and practical procedures. San Fancisco: Jossey-Bass; 1973.
Kline P. An easy guide to factor analysis. London: Routledge; 1994.
World Health Organization. Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health: ICF. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2002.
Kaiser HF. A second generation little jiffy. Psychometrika. 1970;35:401–15. CrossRef
Kaiser HF, Rice J. Little Jiffy, mark IV. Educ Psychol Meas. 1974;34:111–7. CrossRef
Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using multivariate statistics. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.
Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: a note on the size of the model. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1992;45(1):19–30. CrossRef
Muthén B, Kaplan D. A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1985;38(2):171–89. CrossRef
Ding L, Velicer WF, Harlow LL. Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Struct Equ Modeling. 1995;2:119–43. CrossRef
Little TD, Lindenberger U, Nesselroade JR. On selecting indicators for multivariate measurement and modeling with latent variables: when “good” indicators are bad and “bad” indicators are good. Psychol Methods. 1999;4:192–211. CrossRef
Corker M, Shakespeare T. Mapping the terrain. In: Shakespeare T, Corker M, editors. Disability/postmodernity: embodying disability theory. London: Continuum; 2002. p. 1–17.
Gaskin CJ. On the potential for psychological researchers and psychologists to promote the social inclusion of people with disability: a review. Aust Psychol. 2015;50:445–54. CrossRef
- Why sample selection matters in exploratory factor analysis: implications for the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0
Cadeyrn J. Gaskin
Sylvie D. Lambert
Steven J. Bowe
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet AINS
Meistgelesene Bücher aus dem Fachgebiet AINS
Mail Icon II