Suppr超能文献

测量混乱程度?评估简化版的混乱、嘈杂与秩序量表。

Measuring CHAOS? Evaluating the short-form Confusion, Hubbub And Order Scale.

作者信息

Larsen Sally A, Asbury Kathryn, Coventry William L, Hart Sara A, Little Callie W, Petrill Stephen A

机构信息

School of Education, University of New England, Australia.

Department of Education, University of York, UK.

出版信息

Collabra Psychol. 2023;9(1). doi: 10.1525/collabra.77837. Epub 2023 Jun 15.

Abstract

The Confusion, Hubbub and Order Scale (CHAOS) - short form - is a survey tool intended to capture information about home environments. It is widely used in studies of child and adolescent development and psychopathology, particularly twin studies. The original long form of the scale comprised 15 items and was validated in a sample of infants in the 1980s. The short form of the scale was developed in the late 1990s and contains six items, including four from the original scale, and two new items. This short form has not been validated and is the focus of this study. We use five samples drawn from twin studies in Australia, the UK, and the USA, and examine measurement invariance of the CHAOS short-form. We first compare alternate confirmatory factor models for each group; we next test between-group configural, metric and scalar invariance; finally, we examine predictive validity of the scale under different conditions. We find evidence that a two-factor configuration of the six items is more appropriate than the commonly used one-factor model. Second, we find measurement non-invariance across groups at the metric invariance step, with items performing differently depending on the sample. We also find inconsistent results in tests of predictive validity using family-level socioeconomic status and academic achievement as criterion variables. The results caution the continued use of the short-form CHAOS in its current form and recommend future revisions and development of the scale for use in developmental research.

摘要

混乱、喧闹与秩序量表(CHAOS)简版是一种旨在获取家庭环境信息的调查工具。它在儿童和青少年发展以及精神病理学研究中被广泛使用,尤其是在双胞胎研究中。该量表的原始长版包含15个项目,并于20世纪80年代在一组婴儿样本中得到验证。简版量表于20世纪90年代后期编制,包含6个项目,其中4个来自原始量表,另外2个是新项目。这个简版尚未得到验证,是本研究的重点。我们使用从澳大利亚、英国和美国的双胞胎研究中抽取的五个样本,检验CHAOS简版的测量不变性。我们首先比较每组的替代验证性因素模型;接着检验组间构型、度量和标量不变性;最后,我们考察该量表在不同条件下的预测效度。我们发现有证据表明,6个项目的双因素构型比常用的单因素模型更合适。其次,我们发现在度量不变性步骤中,各组之间存在测量非不变性,项目的表现因样本而异。我们还发现,以家庭层面的社会经济地位和学业成绩作为标准变量进行预测效度测试时,结果并不一致。这些结果警示不要继续以当前形式使用CHAOS简版,并建议未来对该量表进行修订和开发,以供发展研究使用。

相似文献

本文引用的文献

3
Open Science in Education Sciences.教育科学中的开放科学。
J Learn Disabil. 2021 Mar;54(2):139-152. doi: 10.1177/0022219420945267. Epub 2020 Jul 31.
5
Thinking twice about sum scores.慎重考虑总和得分。
Behav Res Methods. 2020 Dec;52(6):2287-2305. doi: 10.3758/s13428-020-01398-0.
8
The Florida State Twin Registry.佛罗里达州双胞胎登记处。
Twin Res Hum Genet. 2019 Dec;22(6):728-730. doi: 10.1017/thg.2019.102. Epub 2019 Nov 5.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验