Testing the factor structure of the Family Quality of Life Survey – 2006
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the Family Quality of Life Survey - 2006 (FQOLS-2006) is being used in research, there is little evidence to support its hypothesised domain structure. The purpose of this study was to test the domain structure of the survey using confirmatory factor analysis. METHOD: Samples from Australia, Canada, Nigeria and the USA were analysed using structural equation modelling. The data from Australia, Canada and the USA were combined on the assumption that these countries are similar, at least to some degree, in economic development, language and culture. The Nigerian data were analysed on its own. The analysis was undertaken in two phases. First, the hypothesis that each of nine domains of the FQOLS-2006 is a unidimensional construct that can reliably measure the dimensions Importance, Stability, Opportunities, Attainment, Stability and Satisfaction was tested. Second, the hypothesis that family quality of life (FQoL) is a single latent construct represented by the nine domains measured in the FQOLS-2006 was tested. RESULTS: In the first phase of the analysis, the Importance dimension was dropped because of skewness and lack of variance. The Stability dimension did not fit well within the individual domain model in both the Nigerian and the combined three countries' data. When Importance and Stability were excluded, the individual domain models showede good or acceptable fit when error variances of some dimensions were allowed to correlate. In the second phase of the analysis, the overall model, FQoL, represented by the nine domains of the FQOLS-2006 showed good fit in both data sets. CONCLUSIONS: The conceptual model of the FQOLS-2006 was supported with some qualifications. Each domain on the survey can be reliably measured by four dimensions Opportunities, Initiative, Attainment and Satisfaction. The dimensions of Importance and Stability, however, did not fit. Data reported on these dimensions from past and current studies should be interpreted with caution. The construct of FQoL is also reliably measured by the domains of the FQOLS-2006. Further research into the psychometric properties of the survey, particularly from a cross-cultural perspective, is needed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".