Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
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.
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.
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.
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.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
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.
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. CrossRef
Wilkins, K., & Beaudet, M. P. (1998). Work stress and health. Health Reports, 10(3), 47–62. PubMed
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. CrossRefPubMed
Mirowsky, J., & Ross, C. E. (1998). Education, personal control, lifestyle and health: A human capital hypothesis. Research on Aging, 20(4), 415–449. CrossRef
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2002). Age and the gender gap in the sense of personal control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 65(2), 125–145. CrossRef
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.
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.
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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).
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (1992). Households, employment, and the sense of control. Social Psychology Quarterly, 55(3), 217–235. CrossRef
Byrne, B. M. (2013). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Abingdon: Routledge.
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
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. CrossRef
Arbuckle, J. (2008). Amos 17.0 user’s guide. Chicago: SPSS Incorporated.
Bollen, K. A. (2014). Structural equations with latent variables. Hoboken: Wiley.
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. CrossRef
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.
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.
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.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. CrossRef
Desa, D. (2014). Evaluating measurement invariance of TALIS 2013 complex scales. OECD Education Working Papers, No. 103. Paris: OECD Publishing.
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. CrossRef
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.
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
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. CrossRef
Steinmetz, H. (2013). Analyzing observed composite differences across groups. Is partial measurement invariance enough? Methodology, 9(1), 1–12. CrossRef
Esping-Andersen, G. (1996). Welfare states in transition: National adaptations in global economies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
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.
- The perceived constraints subscale of the Sense of Mastery Scale: dimensionality and measurement invariance
Ragnhild Bang Nes
Leif Edvard Aarø
- Springer International Publishing