Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2021-10
Is the Vineland-3 Comprehensive Interview Form a Multidimensional or Unidimensional Scale? Structural Analysis of Subdomain Scores Across Early Childhood to Adulthood
As the Vineland Scales are among the most relevant, well-developed, and popular measures of adaptive behavior available for use, this study evaluated the factor structure and dimensionality of the Vineland-3 Comprehensive Interview Form. Drawing data from 2,560 participants in the norming sample, exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were completed across two independent samples from four age-groups ranging from preschool-age children to adults. Results from exploratory factor analysis revealed evidence for a unidimensional model across age-groups, but results from confirmatory factor analysis indicated that multidimensional models were better fitting than unidimensional models for each age-group. Discussion focuses on whether the Vineland-3 Comprehensive Interview Form is truly a unidimensional or multidimensional measure.
American Educational Research Association, American Psycho-logical Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
BalboniG.TassoA.MuratoriF.CubelliR. (2016). The Vineland-II in preschool children with autism spectrum disorders: An item content category analysis. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 46, 42-52.
4.
BeauducelA.WittmanW. (2005). Simulation study on fit indices in confirmatory factor analysis based on data with slightly distorted simple structure. Structural Equation Modeling, 12(1), 41-75. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1201_3
5.
BensonN. F.FloydR. G.KranzlerJ. H.EckertT. L.FeferS. A.MorganG. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 National Survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
6.
BorsboomD.CramerA. O. J.KievitR. A.ScholtenA. Z.FranićS. (2009). The end of construct validity. In LissitzR. W. (Ed.), The concept of validity: Revisions, new directions, and applications (pp. 135-172). Information Age.
7.
BrownA.CroudaceT. J. (2015). Scoring and estimating score precision using multidimensional IRT models. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds.), Multivariate applications series. Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (p. 307-333). Routledge.
8.
BrownT. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
CamaraW. J.NathanJ. S.PuenteA. E. (2000). Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(2), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.2.141
11.
CanivezG. L. (2016). Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for multidimensionality and test interpretation. In SchweizerK.DiStefanoC. (Eds.), Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements (pp. 247-271). Hogrefe.
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 646-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
14.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
15.
ChildD. (2006). The essentials of factor analysis. 3rd ed.Continuum.
16.
de BildtA.KraijerD.SytemaS.MinderaaR. (2005). The psychometric properties of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales in children and adolescents with mental retardation. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 35, 53-62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-004-1033-7
DollE. A. (1953). Measurement of social competence. American Guidance Service.
19.
DollE. A. (1965). Vineland Social Maturity Scale. American Guidance Service.
20.
DonosoO. A.HernandezB.HorinE. V. (2010). Use of psychological tests within vocational rehabilitation. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 32(3), 191-200. https://doi.org/10.3233/JVR-2010-0509
FerrandoP. J.Lorenzo-SevaU. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236-241. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2016.304
23.
FerrandoP. J.Lorenzo-SevaU. (2018). Assessing the quality and appropriateness of factor solutions and factor score estimates in exploratory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 78(5), 762-780. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164417719308
24.
FieldA. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics. Sage.
25.
FlakeJ. K.FriedE. I. (2019). Measurement Schmeasurement: Questionable measurement practices and how to avoid them. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/hs7wm
26.
GoldbergM. R.DillC. A.ShinJ. Y.NhanN. V. (2009). Reliability and validity of the Vietnamese Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales with preschool-age children. Research in Development Disabilities, 30(3), 592-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2008.09.001
27.
GorsuchR. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent variable systems. In CudeckR.du ToitS.SörbomD. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: Present and future—A festschrift in honor of Karl Joreskog. Scientific Software International.
29.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
30.
IBM Corp. (2015). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 23.0.
31.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (2004). Pub. L. No. 108-446.
32.
KaneM. T. (2013). Validating the interpretations and uses of test scores. Journal of Educational Measurement, 50(1), 1-73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000
33.
KaufmanA. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. Wiley.
34.
KlineP. (1994). An easy guide to factor analysis. Routledge.
35.
KlineR. B. (2016). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
36.
Lorenzo-SevaU.TimmermanM. E.KiersH. A. (2011). The Hull method for selecting the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 46(2), 340-364. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.564527
37.
Lorenzo-SevaU.Van GinkelJ. R. (2016). Multiple Imputation of missing values in exploratory factor analysis of multidimensional scales: Estimating latent trait scores. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 32(2), 596-608.
38.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1(2), 130-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
NasserF.BensonJ.WisenbakerJ. (2002). The performance of regression-based variations of the visual scree for determining the number of common factors. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(3), 397-419. https://doi.org/10.1177/00164402062003001
41.
PetersonC. H.LomasG. I.NeukrugE. S.BonnerM. W. (2014). Assessment use by counselors in the United States: Implications for policy and practice. Journal of Counseling & Development, 92(1), 90-99. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.2014.00134.x
42.
PriceJ. A.MorrisZ. A.CostelloS. (2018). The application of adaptive behaviour models: A systematic review. Behavioral Sciences, 8(1), 11. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs8010011
RodriguezA.ReiseS. P.HavilandM. G. (2016). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249
45.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66(4), 507-514. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02296192
46.
SchalockR. L.Borthwick-DuffyS.BradleyV.BuntinxW. H. E.CoulterD. L.CraigE. M.GomezS. C.LachapelleY.LuckassonR.ReeveA.ShogrenK. A.SnellM. E.SpreatS.TasséM. J.ThompsonJ. R.Verdugo-AlonsoM. A.WehmeyerM. L.YeagerM. H. (2010). Intellectual disability: Definition, classification, and system of supports (11th ed.). American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities.
SparrowS. S.BallaD. A.CicchettiD. V. (1984a). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Expanded Interview Form. American Guidance Service.
49.
SparrowS. S.BallaD. A.CicchettiD. V. (1984b). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Survey Interview Form. American Guidance Service.
50.
SparrowS. S.CicchettiD. V.BallaD. A. (2005). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition. American Guidance Service. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15164-000
51.
SparrowS. S.CicchettiD. V.SaulnierC. A. (2016). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition. Pearson.
52.
ThompsonJ. R.McGrewK. S.BruininksR. H. (1999). Adaptive and maladaptive behavior: Functional and structural characteristics. In SchalockR. L. (Ed.), Adaptive behavior and its measurement: Implications for the field of mental retardation (pp. 15-42). American Association on Mental Retardation.
53.
TienK. (2008). Factor analyses on characteristic measures from a national sample of adolescents with Asperger syndrome [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Kansas, Lawrence.
54.
TimmermanM. E.Lorenzo-SevaU. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209-220. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023353
55.
TomarkenA. J.WallerN. G. (2003). Potential problems with “well fitting” models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112(4), 578-598. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.112.4.578
56.
VandenBosG. R. (2006). APA dictionary of psychology. American Psychological Association.
57.
von OertzenT.BrandmaierA. M.TsangS. (2015). Structural equation modeling with Ωnyx. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 22(1), 148-161. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.935842
58.
WidamanK. F.Borthwick-DuffyS. A.LittleT. D. (1991). The structure and development of adaptive behaviors. In: BrayN. W. (Ed.), International review of research in mental retardation (Vol. 17, pp. 1-54). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0074-7750(08)60102-0
59.
WidamanK. F.McGrewK. S. (1996). The structure of adaptive behavior. In JacobsonJ. W.MulickJ. S. (Eds.), Manual of diagnosis and professional practice in mental retardation (pp. 97-110). American Psychological Association.
60.
ZoskiK. W.JursS. (1996). An objective counterpart to the visual scree test for factor analysis: The standard error scree. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(3), 443-451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164496056003006
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
