The Role of the Bifactor Model in Resolving Dimensionality Issues in Health Outcomes Measures

Published in: Quality of Life Research, v. 16, suppl. 1, Aug. 2007, p. 19-31

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2007

by Steven Reise, Julien Morizot, Ron D. Hays

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.springerlink.com

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

OBJECTIVES: The authors propose the application of a bifactor model for exploring the dimensional structure of an item response matrix, and for handling multidimensionality. BACKGROUND: The authors argue that a bifactor analysis can complement traditional dimensionality investigations by: (a) providing an evaluation of the distortion that may occur when unidimensional models are fit to multidimensional data, (b) allowing researchers to examine the utility of forming subscales, and, (c) providing an alternative to non-hierarchical multidimensional models for scaling individual differences. METHODS:To demonstrate our arguments, the authors use responses (N = 1,000 Medicaid recipients) to 16 items in the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS 2.0) survey. ANALYSES: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic and item response theory models (unidimensional, multidimensional, and bifactor) were estimated. RESULTS: CAHPS items are consistent with both unidimensional and multidimensional solutions. However, the bifactor model revealed that the overwhelming majority of common variance was due to a general factor. After controlling for the general factor, subscales provided little measurement precision. CONCLUSION: The bifactor model provides a valuable tool for exploring dimensionality related questions. In the Discussion, the authors describe contexts where a bifactor analysis is most productively used, and we contrast bifactor with multidimensional IRT models (MIRT). We also describe implications of bifactor models for IRT applications, and raise some limitations.

This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.