Psychometric equivalence of printed and electronic administration of three psychosocial scales.
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of the study was to examine the influence of the format of administration (printed versus electronic) of psychosocial scales on their psychometric properties and the measurements obtained. University students (N = 435) completed three short and one-dimensional scales, which evaluated optimism, gratitude, and subjective well-being, in printed (52%) or electronic (48%) format. It was found that the mean scores of the three scales did not differ significantly when comparing both modes of application; overall, both electronic and paper instruments provided results with similar properties of reliability and validity. When analyzing the measurement invariance, comparing the model without constraints in the factor structure with the different models with invariance, the measures were equivalent in printed and electronic formats. It was concluded that the format of administration does not affect the indices obtained, so they could be used interchangeably.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
La RACC aplicará la licencia internacional de atribuciones comunes creativas (Reconocimiento 4.0 Internacional: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Bajo esta licencia, se permite cualquier explotación de la obra, incluyendo la explotación con fines comerciales y la creación de obras derivadas, la distribución de las cuales también está permitida sin ninguna restricción. Esta licencia es una licencia libre según la Freedom Defined. La única condición es que siempre y en todos los casos se cite a los autores y a la fuente original de publicación (i.e., RACC). Esta licencia fue desarrollada para facilitar el acceso abierto, gratuito y libre a trabajos originales científicos y artísticos.
How to Cite
References
Aerny Perreten, N., Domínguez-Berjón, M. F., Astray Mochales, J., Esteban-Vasallo, M. D., Blanco Ancos, L. M., & Lópaz Pérez, M. Á. (2012). Tasas de respuesta a tres estudios de opinión realizados mediante cuestionarios en línea en el ámbito sanitario. Gaceta Sanitaria, 26(5), 477-479. doi: 10.1016/j.gaceta.2011.10.016
Allison, P. D. (2002). Missing Data. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Bagby, M., Ayearst, L., Morariu, R., Watters, C., & Taylor, G. (2013). The Internet administration version of the 20-Item Toronto Alexithymia scale. Psychological Assesment, 26(1), 16-22. doi: 10.1037/a0034316
Bentler, P. M. (2004). EQS 6: Structural equation program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Braithwaite, D., Emery, J., De Lusignan, S., & Sutton, S. (2003). Using the Internet to conduct surveys of health professionals: A valid alternative? Family Practice, 20(5), 545-551. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmg509
Calleja, N., & Mason, T. (2020). Escala de Bienestar Subjetivo (EBS-20 y EBS-8): Construcción, validación e invarianza de medición. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación Psicológica –e Avaliação Psicológica, RIDEP, 55(2), 185-201. doi: 10.21865/RIDEP55.2.14
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. doi: 10.1097/NNR.0b013e3182544750
Cuesta, M., Fonseca-Pedrero, E., Vallejo, G., & Muñiz, J. (2013). Datos perdidos y propiedades psicométricas en los tests de personalidad. Anales de Psicología, 29(1), 285-292. doi: 10.6018/analesps.29.1.137901
Determann, D., Lambooij, M., Steyerberg, E., Bekker-Grob, E., & Ardine de Wit, G. (2017). Impact of survey administration mode on the results of a health-related discrete choice experiment: Online and paper comparison. Value in Health, 20(7), 953-960. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2017.02.007
Dimitrov, D. M. (2010). Testing for factorial invariance in the context of construct validation. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 43(2), 121-149. doi: 10.1177/0748175610373459
Dong, Y., & Peng, C.-Y. J. (2013). Principled missing data methods for researchers. SpringerPlus, 2, 222. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-2-222
Durán, P. (2005). Los datos perdidos en estudios de investigación, ¿son realmente datos perdidos? Archivos Argentinos de Pediatría, 103(6), 566-568. Recuperado de: https://www.sap.org.ar/docs/publicaciones/archivosarg/2005/566.pdf
Engels, J. M., & Diehr, P. (2003). Imputation of missing longitudinal data: A comparison of methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(10), 968-976. doi: 10.1016/S0895-4356(03)00170-7
Feldt, L. S. (1969). A test of the hypothesis that Cronbach’s alpha or Kuder-Richardson coefficient twenty is the same for two tests. Psychometrika, 34(3), 363-373. doi: 10.1007/BF02289364
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. doi: 10.1177/002224378101800104
Hosseini, M., Abidin, M., & Baghdarnia, M. (2014). Comparability of test results of computer based tests (CBT) and paper and pencil tests (PPT) among English language learners in Iran. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 98, 659-667. doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.03.465
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Jeong, H. (2014). A comparative study of scores on computer-based tests and paper-based tests. Behavior & Information Technology, 33(4), 410-422. doi: 10.1080/0144929X.2012.710647
Karay, Y., Schauber, S., Stoch, C., & Schüttpelz-Brauns, K. (2015). Computer versus paper - does it make any difference in test performance? Teaching and Learning in Medicine, 27(1), 57-62. doi: 10.1080/10401334.2014.979175
McCullough, M. E., Emmons, R. A., & Tsang, J. A. (2002). The grateful disposition: A conceptual and empirical topography. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 112-127. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.112
Muehlhausen, W., Doll, H., Quadri, N., Fordham, B., O’Donohoe, P., Dogar, N., & Wild, D. J. (2015). Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 13(1), 167. doi: 10.1186/s12955-015-0362-x
Noyes, J., & Garland, K. (2008). Computer vs. paper based tasks: Are they equivalent? Ergonomics, 51(9), 1352-1375. doi: 10.1080/00140130802170387
Pedrosa, I., Celis-Atenas, K., Suárez-Álvarez, J., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2015). Cuestionario para la evaluación del optimismo: Fiabilidad y evidencias de validez. Terapia psicológica, 33(2), 127-138. doi: 10.4067/S0718-48082015000200007
Raykov, T., & Shrout, P. E. (2002). Reliability of scales with general structure: Point and interval estimation using a structural equation modeling approach. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(2), 195-212. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_3
Read, J., Farrow, S., Jaanimägi, F., & Ouimette, P. (2009). Assessing trauma and traumatic stress via the Internet: Measurement equivalence and participant reactions. Traumatology, 15(1), 94-102. doi: 10.1177/1534765608325121
Richardson, C. G., Johnson, J. L., Ratner, P. A., & Zumbo, B. D. (2009). The influence of web-versus paper-based formats on the assessment of tobacco dependence: Evaluating the measurement invariance of the Dimensions of Tobacco Dependence Scale. Substance Abuse: Research and Treatment, 3, 1-14. doi: 10.4137/SART.S960
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of Structural Equation Models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8(2), 23-74. doi: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_3
Spark, S., Lewis, D., Vaisey, A., Smyth, E., Wood, A., Temple-Smith, M. ... Hocking, J. (2015). Using computer-assisted survey instruments instead of paper and pencil increased completeness of self-administered sexual behavior questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(1), 94-101. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.09.011
Streiner, D., Norman, G., & Cairney, J. (2015). Health measurement scales: A practical guide to their development and use (5ª ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vandenberg, R., & Lance, C. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. doi: 10.1177/109442810031002
World Medical Association (2013). Declaration of Helsinki: Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. American Journal of Medicine, 310(20), 2191-2194. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.281053
Zucker, S., Sassman, C., & Case, B. J. (2004). Cognitive labs. San Antonio, TX: Hartcourt Assessment Inc.