Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada,
Support Care Cancer. 2014 Jan;22(1):153-61. doi: 10.1007/s00520-013-1965-6. Epub 2013 Sep 8.
PURPOSE: We investigated alternative ways of understanding the relationships among co-occurring symptoms in individuals with advanced cancer. While factor analysis has been increasingly used to identify symptom clusters, we argue that structural equation modeling is more appropriate because it permits investigating and testing of a greater variety of potential causal interconnections among symptoms. METHODS: The sample included 82 palliative patients whose symptom scores were obtained from a database of the Capital Health Regional Palliative Care Program in Alberta, Canada, from 1995 to 2000. Data were analyzed using exploratory factor analysis (SPSS PASW 18.0.0, 2009) and compared to previous results obtained using structural equation modeling (LISREL 8.8, 2009). RESULTS: Factor models failed to fit the covariance data, even though a single factor "explained" nearly half the variance. Structural equation models fit the data and explained an average of 66 % of the variance in the dependent latent variables. The factor analytic estimates were not clinically useful because they failed to correspond to the reasonable underlying common causes of the symptoms. Structural equation models, on the other hand, incorporated and tested specific clinically anticipated causal relationships among the symptoms and changes in those symptoms over time. CONCLUSION: We used factor analysis to reanalyze data previously investigated with structural equation modeling and found that the structural equation models fit the data better and were more interpretable from a clinical perspective. We caution that factor models should be tested for consistency with the data and critically examined for inconsistencies with clinical understandings of the causal foundations of coordinated symptoms.
目的:我们研究了理解晚期癌症患者同时出现的症状之间关系的其他方法。虽然因子分析已越来越多地用于识别症状群,但我们认为结构方程模型更为合适,因为它允许研究和测试症状之间更多潜在的因果关系。
方法:该样本包括 82 名姑息治疗患者,他们的症状评分来自于加拿大阿尔伯塔省首都地区姑息治疗计划数据库,数据收集时间为 1995 年至 2000 年。使用探索性因子分析(SPSS PASW 18.0.0,2009)对数据进行分析,并与之前使用结构方程模型(LISREL 8.8,2009)获得的结果进行比较。
结果:即使单个因子“解释”了近一半的方差,因子模型仍无法拟合协方差数据。结构方程模型拟合数据,并解释了平均 66%的依赖潜在变量的方差。因子分析的估计值在临床上没有用处,因为它们与症状的合理潜在共同原因不对应。另一方面,结构方程模型纳入并测试了症状之间以及这些症状随时间变化的特定临床预期因果关系。
结论:我们使用因子分析重新分析了先前使用结构方程模型进行研究的数据,发现结构方程模型更能拟合数据,并且从临床角度来看更具可解释性。我们警告说,因子模型应根据数据进行一致性测试,并仔细检查与对协调症状的因果基础的临床理解不一致的地方。
Support Care Cancer. 2013-9-8
Res Nurs Health. 2014-2
Support Care Cancer. 2017-5
J Affect Disord. 2020-1-15
J Cancer Surviv. 2016-2
Multivariate Behav Res. 1966-4-1
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012-10-22
Palliat Med. 2010-6
Qual Life Res. 2010-2-21
Oncol Nurs Forum. 2001-4
J Adv Nurs. 2001-3