medigraphic.com
ISSN 0138-7103 (Print)

2016, Number 3

Next >>

Revista del Hospital Psiquiátrico de La Habana 2016; 13 (3)

Structural analysis of Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale (CAPS) in Colombian university students

Tamayo-Agudelo W, Dominguez-Lara SA

Language: Spanish
References: 37
Page:
PDF size: 394.66 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale (CAPS) is a psychiatric test devised to capture anomalous perceptions looking at it from the hypothesis that psychotic experiences are distributed in the general population, although with less intensity and frequency than in the clinical population.
Objective: Contrast the English factorial model (M1), Spanish (M2), and Colombian (M3) of CAPS in Colombian university students.
Methods: Instrumental investigation in which 261 Colombian university students were participants. CAPS was applied in the classrooms. Descriptive analysis of items was carried out, and the methodology of Models of Structural Equations about matrixes of polycoric correlations was used to assess the three models, and prove its adjustment to data.
Results: The adjustment of the models was not satisfactory for M1 and M2, although for M3 it had adequate adjustment index. It was found evidences of convergent validity of the model, and the reliability assessed with McDonald´s coefficient ω was acceptable.
Conclusions: The factorial solution proposed by M3 seems robust, at least for Colombian samples.


REFERENCES

  1. Johns LC, van Os J. The continuity of psychotic experiences in the general population. Clin Psychol Rev. 2001; 21:1125-41. doi:10.1016/S0272-7358(01)00103-9

  2. Ritsner MS, Mar M, Arbitman M, Grinshpoon A. Sympton severity scale of the DSM5 for schizophrenia, and other psychotic disorders: diagnostic validity and clinical feasibility. Psychiatry Res. 2013; 208:1-8. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2013.02.029

  3. van Os J. The Many Continua of Psychosis. JAMA Psychiatry. 2014;71:985-86

  4. David AS. Should the diagnostic boundaries of schizophrenia be expanded? Cogn Neuropsychiatry. 2011; 16:97-100. doi: 10.1080/13546805.2011.554276

  5. Tandon R. Getting ready for DSM-5: Psychotic disorders. Curr Psychiatr. 2012; 11:E1- E4.

  6. Eysenck HJ. Schizothymia-cyclothymia as a dimension of personality. Exp J Pers. 1952; 20:345-84.

  7. Bell V, Halligan PW, Ellis HD. The Cardiff anomalous perceptions scale (CAPS): A new validated measure of anomalous perceptual experience. Schizo Bull. 2006; 32:366–77. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbj014

  8. Jaén-Moreno MJ, Moreno-Díaz MJ, Luque-Luque R, Bell V. Validación de la versión española de la Escala dePercepciones Anómalas de Cardiff en población general. Actas Esp Psiquiatr. 2014; 42:1-8.

  9. Tamayo-Agudelo W, Jaén-Moreno MJ, Luque-Luque R. Estructura factorial de la Cardiff Anomalous Perceptions Scale (CAPS) en una muestra de población colombiana. Rev Colomb Psiquiatr. 2015; 44:213-19. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rcp.2015.05.015

  10. Ferrando PJ, Anguiano-Carrasco C. El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en psicología. Papeles del psicólogo. 2010; 31:18-33.

  11. Henson R, Roberts J. Use of exploratory factor analysis in published research. Common errors and some comment on improved practice. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006; 66:393-416. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282485

  12. Lloret-Segura S, Ferreres-Traver A, Hernández-Baeza A, Tomás-Marco. El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología 2014; 30:1151-1169. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361

  13. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: The Guilford Press; 2006.

  14. Dominguez S. ¿Matrices Policóricas/Tetracóricas o Matrices Pearson? Un estudio metodológico. Rev Argent Cienc Comport. 2014; 6:39-48.

  15. Messick S. Meaning and values in test validation: The science and ethics of assessment. Educ Res. 1989; 18: 5-11. doi: 10.3102/0013189X018002005

  16. Montero E. Referentes conceptuales y metodológicos sobre la noción moderna de validez de instrumentos de medición: implicaciones para el caso de personas con necesidades educativas especiales. Actual Psicol. 2013; 27:113-28.

  17. Montero I, León OG. Guía para nombrar los estudios de investigación en Psicología. Int J Clin Health Psychol 2007; 7:847-62.

  18. Beaducel A, Herberg PY. On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Struct Equ Modeling 2006; 13:186- 203. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2

  19. Ruiz M, Pardo A, San Martín R. Modelos de Ecuaciones Estructurales. Papeles del psicólogo. 2010; 31:34-45.

  20. Satorra A, Bentler, PM. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. En: von Eye A, Clogg CC, coordinador. Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1994. P.399-419.

  21. Lee SY, Poon WY, Bentler PM. A two-stage estimation of structural equation models with continuous and polytomous variables. Br J Math Stat Psychol. 1995; 48:339-58. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1995.tb01067.x

  22. Bentler PM. SEM with simplicity and accuracy. J Consum Psychol. 2010; 20:215-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jcps.2010.03.002

  23. Holgado-Tello FP, Chacón-Moscoso S, Barbero-García I, Vila-Abad E. Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Qual Quant. 2010; 44:153-66. doi: 10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y

  24. Lei PW, Wu Q. Estimation in structural equation modeling. En: R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling. New York: Guildford Press; 2012, p. 164- 179.

  25. Merino C, Charter R. Modificación Horst al Coeficiente KR - 20 por Dispersión de la Dificultad de los Ítems. Interam J Psychol 2010; 44:274-78.

  26. McDonald RP: Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, N.J.: L. Erlbaum Associates; 1999.

  27. Hancock GR, Mueller RO. Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. En: Cudeck R, du Toit SHC, Sörbom D, coordinador. Structural equation modeling: Past and present. A Festschrift in honor of Karl G. Jöreskog. Chicago: Scientific Software International; 2001. p. 195-261.

  28. Malgady R. How skew are psychological data? A standardized index of effect size. J Gen Psychol. 2007; 134: 355-9.

  29. Mardia K. Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika. 1970; 57:519-30. doi: 10.2307/2334770

  30. Rodríguez M, Ruiz M. Atenuación de la asimetría y de la curtosis de las puntuaciones observadas mediante transformaciones de variables: Incidencia sobre la estructura factorial. Psicológica. 2008; 29:205-27.

  31. Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluationg structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Marketing Res. 1981; 18: 39-50.

  32. Merino C, Pflucker D, Riaño-Hernández D. Análisis factorial exploratorio del Inventario de Depresión Estado-Rasgo (ST-DEP) en adolescentes. Diversitas Perspect Psicol. 2012; 8: 319-30.

  33. Linscott RJ, van Os J. Systematic Reviews of Categorical Versus Continuum Models in Psychosis: Evidence for Discontinuous Subpopulations Underlying a Psychometric Continuum. Implications for DSM-V, DSM-VI, and DSM-VII. Annu. Rev Clin Psychol. 2010; 6:391-419.

  34. Graham JM. Congeneric and essentially tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006; 66:930-44. doi: 10.1177/0013164406288165

  35. Meyer JP. Reliability. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.

  36. Dunn TJ, Baguley T, Brunsden V. From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problema of internal consistency estimation. Br J Psychol. 2014; 105:399-412. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12046

  37. Van der Schoot R, Lugtig P, Hox J. A checklist for testing measurement invariance. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2012; 9:486-92. doi:10.1080/17405629.2012.686740




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com