Measurement invariance study of the Training Satisfaction Questionnaire (TSQ)

  1. Sanduvete-Chaves, Susana 1
  2. Holgado Tello, Francisco Pablo 2
  3. Chacón Moscoso, Salvador 1
  4. Barbero García, María Isabel 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Sevilla
    info

    Universidad de Sevilla

    Sevilla, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03yxnpp24

  2. 2 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
    info

    Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia

    Madrid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02msb5n36

Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2013

Número: 16

Páginas: 1-12

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2013.49 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Resumen

This article presents an empirical measurement invariance study in the substantive area of satisfaction evaluation in training programs. Specifically, it (I) provides an empirical solution to the lack of explicit measurement models of satisfaction scales, offering a way of analyzing and operationalizing the substantive theoretical dimensions; (II) outlines and discusses the analytical consequences of considering the effects of categorizing supposedly continuous variables, which are not usually taken into account; (III) presents empirical results from a measurement invariance study based on 5,272 participants� responses to a training satisfaction questionnaire in three different organizations and in two different training methods, taking into account the factor structure of the measured construct and the ordinal nature of the recorded data; and (IV) describes the substantive implications in the area of training satisfaction evaluation, such as the usefulness of the training satisfaction questionnaire to measure satisfaction in different organizations and different training methods. It also discusses further research based on these findings.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Averns H., Maraschiello M., van Melle E., & Day A. (2009). Evaluation of a web-based teaching module on examination of the hand. Journal of Rheumatology, 36, 623-627. http://dx.doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.080761.
  • Barron T. (1997). Is there an ROI in ROI? Technical and Skills Training, January, 21-26.
  • Bollen K. (1989a). A new incremental fit index for general structural models. Sociological Methods and Research, 17, 303-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0049124189017003004.
  • Bollen K. (1989b). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Bollen K., & Bauldry S. (2011). Three Cs in measurement models: Causal indicators, composite indicators, and covariates. Psychological Methods, 16, 265-284. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024448.
  • Brown T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  • Byrne B. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Chacón S., & Shadish W. (2008). Validez en evaluación de programas [Validity in program evaluation]. In M. T. Anguera, S. Chacón, & A. Blanco (Coords.), Evaluación de programas sociales y sanitarios. Un abordaje metodológico [Social and health program evaluation. A methodological approach] (pp. 69-102). Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.
  • Chen F. F., Sousa K. H., & West S. G. (2005). Teacher's corner: Testing measurement invariance of second-order factor models. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 471-492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203-7.
  • Cheung G. W., & Rensvold R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902-5.
  • Coenders G., Saris W., & Satorra A. (1997). Alternative approaches to structural equation modeling of ordinal data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 261-282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519709540077.
  • Del Barrio M. V., Carrasco M. A., & Holgado F. P. (2006). Factor structure invariance in the Children's Big Five Questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 158-167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.3.158.
  • Díaz J. F., & Sánchez-López M. P. (2004). Composite and preferences scales of Morningness: Reliability and factor invariance in adult and university samples. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 7, 93-100.
  • DiStefano C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327-346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0903-2.
  • Flora D. B., Finkel E. J., & Foshee V. A. (2003). Higher order factor structure of a self-control test: Evidence from confirmatory factor analysis with polychoric correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 112-127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013164402239320.
  • Gillespie M. A., Denison D. R., Haaland S., Smerek R., & Neale W. S. (2008). Linking organizational culture and customer satisfaction: Results from two companies in different industries. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 112-132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320701560820.
  • Guilley W., & Uhlig G. (1993). Factor analysis and ordinal data. Education, 114, 258-264.
  • Hoe S. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modeling technique. Journal of Applied Quantitative Methods, 3, 76-83.
  • Holgado F. P., Chacón S., Barbero M. I., & Sanduvete S. (2006). Training satisfaction rating scale. Development of a measurement model using polychoric correlations. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 22, 268-279. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.22.4.268.
  • Holgado F. P., Chacón S., Barbero M. I., & Vila E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 44, 153-166. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y.
  • Jöreskog K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409-426. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02291366.
  • Jöreskog K. G. (2001). Analysis of ordinal variables 2: Cross-Sectional Data. Text of the workshop Structural Equation Modeling with LISREL 8.51. Jena, Germany: Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena.
  • Jöreskog K. G., & Sörbom D. (1996). PRELIS 2: User's reference guide. Chicago, CA: Scientific Software International.
  • Kim K. H. (2005). The relation among fit indexes, power, and sample size in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 368-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1203-2.
  • Kirkpatrick D. L. (1999). Evaluación de acciones formativas [Training programs evaluation]. Barcelona, Spain: Epise.
  • Marsh H. W. (1994). Confirmatory factor analysis models of factorial invariance: A multifaceted approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 5-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519409539960.
  • Menjares P. C., Michael W. B., & Rueda R. (2000). The development and construct validation of a Spanish version of an academic self-concept scale for middle school Hispanic students from families of low socioeconomic levels. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 3, 53-62.
  • Messick S. (1994). Foundations of validity: Meaning and consequences in psychological assessment. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10, 1-9.
  • Millsap R. E., & Tein J.-Y. (2004). Assessing factorial invariance in ordered-categorical measures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 479-515. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3903-4.
  • Osterlind S. J. (1998). Constructing test items: Multiple-choice, constructed-response, performance, and other formats. London, UK: Kluwer Academic Publisher.
  • Shadish W., Cook T., & Campbell D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental design for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
  • Thayer P. (1991). A historical perspective on training. In I. L. Goldstein & Associates (Eds.), Training and development in organizations (pp. 457-468). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
  • Vanderberg R. J., & Lance C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002.
  • Welkenhuysen-Gybels J. (2004). The performance of some observed and unobserved conditional invariance techniques for the detection of differential item functioning. Quality & Quantity. International Journal of Methodology, 38, 681-702. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-004-5948-z.
  • Ybema J. F., Smulders P. G. W., & Bongers P. M. (2010). Antecedents and consequences of employee absenteeism: A longitudinal perspective on the role of job satisfaction and burnout. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 102-124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13594320902793691.
  • Ying P., & Fan X. (2003). Assessing the factor structure invariance of self-concept measurement across ethnic and gender groups: Findings from a national sample. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 296-318.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet