Further evidence for a bifactor solution for the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: Measurement and conceptual implications

The Consideration of Future Consequences construct has been found to relate meaningfully to several positive outcomes in temporal research. Researchers have proposed 1-factor, 2-factor, and bifactor solutions to the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale (CFCS). Using 313 British University undergraduates, we tested four competing models: (a) a 12-item unidimensional model, (b) a model fitted for two uncorrelated factors (CFC-Immediate and CFC-Future), (c) a model fitted for two correlated factors (CFC-I and CFC-F), and (d) a bifactor model. Results supported the bifactor model, suggesting that the two hypothesized factors are better understood as grouping factors. Accordingly, the present study supports the CFCS as a unidimensional global future orientation measure. These results have important implications for the study of future orientation using the CFCS. Researchers using the CFCS are encouraged to examine a bifactor solution for the scores.

Dimensionality, Reliability and Validity of the InterRAI Depression Rating Scale in a Canadian Palliative Care Population

A reliable and valid instrument is needed to screen for depression in palliative patients. The interRAI Depression Rating Scale (DRS) is based on seven items in the interRAI Palliative Care instrument. This study is the first to explore the dimensionality, reliability and validity of the DRS in a palliative population. Palliative home care patients (n = 5,175) residing in Ontario (Canada) were assessed with the interRAI Palliative Care instrument. Exploratory factor analysis and Mokken scale analysis were used to identify candidate conceptual models and evaluate scale homogeneity/performance. Confirmatory factor analysis compared models using standard goodness-of-fit indices. Convergent and divergent validity were investigated by examining polychoric correlations between the DRS and other items. The “known groups” test determined if the DRS meaningfully distinguished among client subgroups. The non-hierarchical two factor model showed acceptable fit with the data, and ordinal alpha coefficients of 0.83 and 0.82 were observed for the two DRS subscales. Omega hierarchical (ωh) was 0.78 for the bifactor model, with the general factor explaining three quarters of the common variance. Despite the multidimensionality evident in the factor analyses, bifactor modelling and the Mokken homogeneity coefficient (0.34) suggest that the DRS is a coherent scale that captures important information on sub-constructs of depression (e.g., somatic symptoms). Higher correlations were seen between the DRS and mood and psychosocial well-being items, and lower correlations with functional status and demographic variables. The DRS distinguished in the expected manner for known risk factors (e.g., social support, pain). The results suggest that the DRS is primarily unidimensional and reliable for use in screening for depression in palliative care patients.

General and specific components of depression and anxiety in an adolescent population

Background Depressive and anxiety symptoms often co-occur resulting in a debate about common and distinct features of depression and anxiety. Methods An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and a bifactor modelling approach were used to separate a general distress continuum from more specific sub-domains of depression and anxiety in an adolescent community sample (n = 1159, age 14). The Mood and Feelings Questionnaire and the Revised Children's Manifest Anxiety Scale were used. Results A three-factor confirmatory factor analysis is reported which identified a) mood and social-cognitive symptoms of depression, b) worrying symptoms, and c) somatic and information-processing symptoms as distinct yet closely related constructs. Subsequent bifactor modelling supported a general distress factor which accounted for the communality of the depression and anxiety items. Specific factors for hopelessness-suicidal thoughts and restlessness-fatigue indicated distinct psychopathological constructs which account for unique information over and above the general distress factor. The general distress factor and the hopelessness-suicidal factor were more severe in females but the restlessness-fatigue factor worse in males. Measurement precision of the general distress factor was higher and spanned a wider range of the population than any of the three first-order factors. Conclusions The general distress factor provides the most reliable target for epidemiological analysis but specific factors may help to refine valid phenotype dimensions for aetiological research and assist in prognostic modelling of future psychiatric episodes.