Factor Structure of the Symptom Assessment-45 Questionnaire (SA-45)

  1. FRANCISCO PABLO HOLGADO-TELLO 1
  2. ENRIQUE VILA-ABAD 1
  3. Mª ISABEL BARBERO-GARCIA 1
  1. 1 Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), España
Journal:
Acción psicológica

ISSN: 1578-908X

Year of publication: 2019

Volume: 16

Issue: 1

Pages: 31-42

Type: Article

DOI: 10.5944/AP.16.1.22048 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Acción psicológica

Sustainable development goals

Abstract

We describe the internal structure of the Symptom Assessment-45 Questionnaire (SA-45; Davison et al., 1997) in a sample of non-clinical Spanish subjects. The scale was developed for treatment outcome assessment in psychiatric settings; however, many studies have examined its psychometric properties in non-clinical populations. The internal structure of these studies usually replicates the dimensionality proposed in the original study closely. In this work, the scale was administered to a sample of 823 participants. In order to analyse the dimensionality of the instrument in a non-clinical population, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses using polychoric correlations were carried out. The results obtained, are similar to those obtained for the original model and replicated in later studies, but there are important nuances that should be taken into account in defining a measurement model for the sample used. These data confirm the need for further research in a non-clinical population.

Bibliographic References

  • Alvarado, B. G., Sandín, B., Valdez-Medina, J. L., González-Arratia, N., & Rivera, S. (2012). Análisis factorial confirmatorio del Cuestionario SA-45 en una muestra mexicana [Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the SA-45 Questionnaire in a Mexican sample]. Anales de Psicología, 8(2), 426–433. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.28.2.148851
  • Barendse, M. T., Oort, F. J., & Timmerman, M. E. (2015). Using Exploratory Factor Analysis to Determine the Dimensionality of Discrete Responses. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 87–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.934850
  • Calcedo, A. (2000). Evaluación forense. En J. Bobes, M. Bousoño, A. Calcedo y M. P. González (Eds.). Trastorno de estrés postraumático [Post-traumatic Stress Disorder] (pp. 287–299). Barcelona, Spain: Masson.
  • Costello, A. B. & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9. Retrieved from https://pareonline.net/pdf/v10n7.pdf
  • Davison, M., Bershadsky, B., Bieber, J., Silversmith, D., Maruish, M. E., & Kane, R. L. (1997). Development of a Brief, Multidimensional, Self-Report Instrument for Treatment Outcomes Assessment in Psychiatric Settings: Preliminary Findings. Assessment, 4(3), 259–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319119700400306.
  • Derogatis, L. R. (1977). SCL-90R (revised version) manual I. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine.
  • Derogatis, L. R. & Cleary, P. A. (1977). Confirmation of the Dimensional Structure of the SCL-90: A Study in Construct Validation. Journal of Clinical Psichology, 33, 981–989. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(197710)33:4<981::AID-JCLP2270330412>3.0.CO;2-0
  • Derogatis, L. R. & Savitz, K. L. (1999). The SCL-90-R, brief symptom inventory, and matching clinical rating scales. In M. E. Maruish (Ed), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and outcomes assessment (2nd Ed., pp. 679–724). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
  • Derogatis, L. R., Lipman, R. S., & Covi, L. (1973). SCL-90: An Outpatient Psychiatric Rating ScalePreliminary Report. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 9, 13–27.
  • Dutton, D. (2003). MCMI Results for Batterers: A Response to Gondolf. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 253–255. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024072415872
  • Echeburúa, E., Amor, P. J., & Corral, P. (2003). Autoinformes y entrevistas en el ámbito de la psicología clínica forense: Limitaciones y nuevas perspectivas [The Forensic Psychological Evaluation in Front of the Clinical Evaluation: Proposals and Future Challenges]. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 29, 503–522.
  • Fernández-Montalvo, J. & Echeburúa, E. (2006). Uso y abuso de los autoinformes en la evaluación de los trastornos de personalidad [Use and Abuse of Self-Reports in the Assessment of Personality disorders]. Revista de Psicopatología y Psicología Clínica, 11, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.5944/rppc.vol.11.num.1.2006.4014
  • Gondolf, E. W. (2003). MCMI Results for Batterers: Gondolf Replies to Dutton´s Response. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 387–389. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026247515800
  • Holgado-Tello, F. P., Morata-Ramirez, M. A., & Barbero, M. I. (2018). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables: A Simulation Study Comparing the Main Estimation Methods. Avances en Psicología Latinoamericana, 36, 601–617. https://doi.org/10.12804/revistas.urosario.edu.co/apl/a.4932
  • Holgado-Tello, F .P., Chacon, S., Barbero, I., & Vila, E. (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson Correlations in Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables. Quality and Quantity, 44, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y
  • Hyler, S. E., Reider, R. C., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L. Lyons, M., & Hendler, J. (1989). A Comparison of Clinical and Self Report Diagnoses of DMSIII Personality Disorders in 552 patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-440X(89)90070-9
  • Jöreskog, K. G. & Sörbom, D. (1996). LISREL 8.8 User`s Reference Guide. Scientific software.
  • Maruish, M. E., Bershadsky, B., & Goldstein, L. (1998). Reliability and Validity of the SA-45: Further Evidence from a Primary Care Setting. Assessment, 5(4), 407–420. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319119800500410
  • Morata-Ramírez, M., Holgado-Tello, F. P., Barbero-García, I., & Mendez, G. (2015). Análisis factorial confirmatorio: recomendaciones sobre mínimos cuadrados no ponderados en función del error Tipo I de Ji-Cuadrado y RMSEA [Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Recommendations for Unweighted Least Squares Method Related to Chi-Square and RMSEA]. Acción Psicológica, 12(1), 79–90. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.12.1.14362
  • Osborne, J. W. & Fitzpatrick, D. C. (2012). Replication Analysis in Exploratory Factor Analysis: What it is and why it Makes your Analysis Better. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 17(15), 1-8. Retrieved from https://pareonline.net/pdf/v17n15.pdf
  • Osborne, J. W., Costello, A. B, & Kellow, J. T. (2008). Best Practices in Exploratory Factor Analysis. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods (pp. 299–305). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Sandín, B., Valiente, M. R., Chorot, P., Santed, M. A., & Lostao, L. (2008). SA-45: forma abreviada del SCL-90 [SA-45: A Brief form of the SCL-90]. Psicothema, 20(2), 290–296.
  • Vassend, O., & Skrondal, A. (1999). The Problem of Structural Indeterminacy in Multidimensional Symptom Report Instruments: The case of SCL-90-R. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 37, 685–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0005-7967(98)00182-X
  • Yang-Wallentin, F., Jöreskog, K. G., & Luo, H. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables with Misspecified Models. Structural Equation Modeling, 17(3), 392–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2010.489003.
  • Zimmerman, M. & Coryell, W. (1989). DMS III Personality Disorder Diagnosis in a Nonpatient Sample. Demographic Correlates and Comorbidity. Archives of General Psychiatry, 46, 682–689. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1989.01810080012002
Data source: Dialnet