Reexamining the Factorial Validity of the 16-Item Scale Measuring Need for Cognition
A growing body of studies has emphasized the need to consider method effects due to positively and negatively worded items for a better understanding of the factorial structure of psychological constructs. In particular, several researchers identified such method factors besides the content factor f...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of psychological assessment : official organ of the European Association of Psychological Assessment 2020, Vol.36 (1), p.212-215 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | A growing body of studies has emphasized the need to
consider method effects due to positively and negatively worded items for a
better understanding of the factorial structure of psychological constructs. In
particular, several researchers identified such method factors besides the
content factor for various scales measuring Need for Cognition (NFC). However,
regarding the factorial validity of the 16-item NFC scale developed by Bless, Wänke, Bohner, Fellhauer,
and Schwartz (1994), only a one-factor structure without the
inclusion of possible method factors has been examined so far. Therefore, we
considered such method factors in a broader reexamination of the factorial
validity of this measure by investigating a range of structural models in two
samples (n = 830,
n = 500). We found that a one-factor solution as
proposed by Bertrams and
Dickhäuser (2010) and Bless et al. (1994) did not fit the data, whereas the
inclusion of method factors improved the model fit significantly. According to
our results, the model including both the content factor and two uncorrelated
method factors yielded the best model fit. In sum, our results provide an
extended view of the factorial validity of the 16-item scale of NFC. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1015-5759 2151-2426 2151-2426 |
DOI: | 10.1027/1015-5759/a000484 |