Factorial Validity and Invariance of a Survey Measuring Psychosocial Correlates of Colorectal Cancer Screening in Ontario, Canada—A Replication Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Psychosocial constructs have been used to predict colorectal cancer screening and are frequently targeted as intermediate outcomes in behavioral intervention studies. Few studies have conducted analyses to adequately test construct validity. The psychometric analyses undertaken with U.S. populations of 16 theory-based, colorectal cancer screening items designed to measure five factors (salience-coherence, cancer worries, perceived susceptibility, response efficacy, and social influence) are an exception. The current investigation replicates previous work by examining factor validity and invariance in a random sample of Ontario, Canada residents. A survey instrument was administered to 1,013 Ontario male (49%) and female (51%) residents randomly selected by the Canada Survey Sample. Single-group confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) assessed data fit to the proposed five-factor model for males and females separately, and then a multigroup CFA evaluated if the factor structure was invariant for men and women. The five-factor model provided good fit for both males and females. Tests for factorial invariance between sexes, however, found mixed results. chi2 difference test was significant (P = 0.025); however, DeltaRMSEA = 0.0001. Factor loadings were similar by sex except for two social influence items, with item frequency distributions suggesting an extreme response style, in females, on these items. Overall, the single-group and multigroup CFA results support factorial validity and partial invariance of the five-factor model first identified in the U.S. populations. The items can be used to evaluate and compare psychosocial correlates across U.S. and Canadian samples. Additional research is needed to show invariance for other ethnocultural and national subgroups.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".