Power analyses for measurement model misspecification and response shift detection with structural equation modeling
-
Published:2024-03-01
Issue:5
Volume:33
Page:1241-1256
-
ISSN:0962-9343
-
Container-title:Quality of Life Research
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Qual Life Res
Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Statistical power for response shift detection with structural equation modeling (SEM) is currently underreported. The present paper addresses this issue by providing worked-out examples and syntaxes of power calculations relevant for the statistical tests associated with the SEM approach for response shift detection.
Methods
Power calculations and related sample-size requirements are illustrated for two modelling goals: (1) to detect misspecification in the measurement model, and (2) to detect response shift. Power analyses for hypotheses regarding (exact) overall model fit and the presence of response shift are demonstrated in a step-by-step manner. The freely available and user-friendly R-package lavaan and shiny-app ‘power4SEM’ are used for the calculations.
Results
Using the SF-36 as an example, we illustrate the specification of null-hypothesis (H0) and alternative hypothesis (H1) models to calculate chi-square based power for the test on overall model fit, the omnibus test on response shift, and the specific test on response shift. For example, we show that a sample size of 506 is needed to reject an incorrectly specified measurement model, when the actual model has two-medium sized cross loadings. We also illustrate power calculation based on the RMSEA index for approximate fit, where H0 and H1 are defined in terms of RMSEA-values.
Conclusion
By providing accessible resources to perform power analyses and emphasizing the different power analyses associated with different modeling goals, we hope to facilitate the uptake of power analyses for response shift detection with SEM and thereby enhance the stringency of response shift research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference35 articles.
1. Sprangers, M. A. G., & Schwartz, C. E. (1999). Integrating response shift into health-related quality of life research: A theoretical model. Social Science and Medicine, 48, 1507–1515. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00045-3 2. Sprangers, M. A. G., Sajobi, T., Vanier, A., Mayo, N. E., Sawatzky, R., Lix, L. M., Oort, F. J., Sébille, V., & Response Shift – in Sync Working Group. (2021). Response shift results of patient-reported outcome measures: A commentary to The response shift-in sync working group initiative. Quality of Life Research, 30(12), 3299–3308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02747-4 3. Vanier, A., Oort, F. J., McClimans, L., Ow, N., Gulek, B. G., Böhnke, J. R., Sprangers, M. A. G., Sébille, V., Mayo, N., & Response Shift – in Sync Working Group. (2021). Response shift in patient-reported outcomes: Definition, theory, and a revised model. Quality of Life Research, 30(12), 3309–3322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02846-w 4. Sébille, V., Lix, L. M., Ayilara, O. F., Sajobi, T. T., Janssens, C. J. W., Sawatzky, R., Sprangers, M. A. G., Verdam, M. G. E. & the Response Shift – in Sync Working Group. (2021). Critical examination of current response shift methods and proposal for advancing new methods. Quality of Life Research, 30(12), 3325–3342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02755-4 5. Sawatzky, R., Kwon, J.-Y., Barclay, R., Chauhan, C., Frank, L., van den Hout, W. B., Kongsgaard Nielsen, L., Nolte, S., Sprangers, M. A. G., & Response Shift – in Sync Working Group. (2021). Implications of response shift for micro-, meso-, and macro-level healthcare decision-making using results of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 30(12), 3343–3357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02766-9
|
|