This study investigated the effect of item position on descriptive statistics, psychometric information, and factor structure of the Pediatric Symptoms Checklist 17-item social-emotional screening instrument (PSC-17). The goal was to determine whether item position, either grouped by factor or mixed across constructs, produced similar results. Descriptive statistics, reliability estimates, and model-data fit were similar across the two versions of the screener. Factor invariance tests supported strict invariance across the two versions, and very small differences between latent means for the three factors measured by the PSC-17. Both forms are equivalent for use with screening activities.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
2.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (1999). Testing factorial invariance across groups: A reconceptualization and proposed new method. Journal of Management, 25, 1-27.
3.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9, 233-255.
4.
DiStefanoC. (2016). Examining fit with structural equation models. In SchweizerK.DiStefanoC. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction (pp. 308-322). Gottenheim, Germany: Hogrefe.
5.
DiStefanoC.LiuJ.BurgessY. (2017). Investigating the structure of the Pediatric Symptoms Checklist in the preschool setting. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 35, 494-505.
6.
FrantomC.GreenK. E.LamT. C. (2002). Item grouping effects on invariance of attitude items. Journal of Applied Measurement, 3(1), 38-49.
7.
GardnerW.MurphyM.ChildsG.KelleherK.PaganoM.JellinekM.. . . SturnerR. (1999). The PSC-17: A brief Pediatric Symptom Checklist with psychosocial subscales. Ambulatory Child Health, 5, 225-236.
8.
GoodmanR. (1997). The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 38, 581-586.
9.
GuzmanJ.KesslerR. C.SquicciariniA. M.GeorgeM.BaerL.CanenguezK. M. (2015). Evidence for the effectiveness of a national school-based mental health program in Chile. Journal for the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 54, 799-807.
10.
HuL.BentlerP. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
11.
KamphausR. W.ReynoldsC. (2015). Behavioral and emotional screening system. New York, NY: Pearson.
12.
KnowlesE. S.ByersB. (1996). Reliability shifts in measurement reactivity: Driven by content engagement or self-engagement?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1080-1090.
13.
McDonaldR. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
MoirV. K.LeeC. W.MaraisI. (2017). The effects of item placement in the Young Schema Questionnaire. Journal of Applied Measurement, 18, 370-382.
15.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2018). Mplus version 8 user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
16.
NardiP. M. (2006). Doing survey research (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
17.
PutnickD. L.BornsteinM. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71-90.
18.
RamirezI. L.StrausM. L. (2006). The effect of question order on disclosure of intimate partner violence: An experimental test using the Conflict Tactics Scales. Journal of Family Violence, 21, 1-9.
19.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
