Revision of the Mental Fitness Scale : Validation and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Jeong-Mi Lee; Dohee Bae; Jong-Min Woo

doi:10.4306/jknpa.2013.52.6.431

Journal List > J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc > v.52(6) > 1017659

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Lee, Bae, and Woo: Revision of the Mental Fitness Scale : Validation and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Original Article

Journal of Korean Neuropsychiatric Association 2013; 52(6): 431-441.

Published online: 30 November 2013

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4306/jknpa.2013.52.6.431

Revision of the Mental Fitness Scale : Validation and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Jeong-Mi Lee, PhD¹, Dohee Bae, MA², Jong-Min Woo, MD, MPH, PhD^2,³

¹Yongmoon Graduate School of Counseling Psychology, Seoul, Korea.

²Department of Psychiatry, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.

³Stress Research Institute, Inje University, Seoul, Korea.

Address for correspondence: Jong-Min Woo, MD, MPH, PhD. Department of Psychiatry, Seoul Paik Hospital, Inje University School of Medicine, 9 Mareunnae-ro, Jung-gu, Seoul 100-032, Korea. Tel +82-2-2270-0063, Fax +82-2-2270-0344, jongmin.woo@gmail.com

Received 21 June 2013 Revised 14 September 2013 Accepted 15 September 2013

Abstract

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to correct the statistical errors in the previous article on "The Development of the 'Mental Fitness' Scale" (MFS) and to confirm the validity of factor structure via confirmatory factor analysis.

Methods

Based on re-analysis of the factor structure of 25 preliminary items using the original dataset, we identified 22 items of the MFS and assessed test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was assessed by correlating the new set of MFS with total scores of the Beck Depression Inventory and Positive and Negative Affect Schedule. We also performed confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in order to verify the factor structure resulting from the exploratory factor analysis.

Results

Re-analysis yielded five factors of 22 items, which is different from four factors of 20 items in the previous paper. 'Self-understanding' was added as one of the five factors. The test-retest reliability coefficients were significantly high, ranging between 0.57-0.73. Internal consistency was computed, and Cronbach's α for five factors ranged between 0.67-0.86, and was 0.91 for the total score. Concurrent validity and discriminant validity were both significant. The validity of five factor structure based on CFA was verified as root mean square error of approximation was significant.

Conclusion

Based on results of confirmatory factor analysis, the validity and utility of the revised MFS was increased.

Keywords: Mental Fitness Scale, Confirmatory factor analysis, Reliability, Validity

Figures and Tables

Fig. 1

Measurement Model for CFA. ME: Mental fitness, EC: Empathetic communication, FL: Flexibility, SA: Self-awareness, SU: Self-understanding.

Table 1

Sociodemographic characteristics of subjects

EFA : Explanatory Factor Analysis, CFA : Confirmatory Factor Analysis, SD : Standard deviation

Table 2

Factor analysis and item-total correlation of Mental Fitness Scale

^* : cumulative % of variance, ^† : this was deleted because it was loaded on two factors at the same score, ^‡ : this was deleted because it was loaded on two factors at the same score

Table 3

Item-total correlation & internal consistency (n=212)

Table 4

Pearson correlations of the Mental Fitness subscales (n=212)

^** : p<0.01

Table 5

Test-retest reliability

^* : Pearson's correlation coefficient, p<0.01

Table 6

Pearson's correlations of the Mental Fitness Scale subscale scores with the scores of BDI and PANAS (n=212)

^* : p<0.05, ^** : p<0.01. BDI : Beck Depression Inventory, PANAS : Positive Affect Negative Affect Scale

Table 7

Internal consistency, M of item discrimination, M and SD of MFS subscales (n=378)

MFS : Mental Fitness Scale, SD : Standard deviation

Table 8

Goodness of Fit Index of the model

df : Degree of freedom, TLI : Turker-Lewis Index, CFI : Comparative Fit Index, RMSEA : Root Mean Error of Approximation

Table 9

CFA results of Mental Fitness Scale

^*** : p<0.001. C.R. ratio : Critical ratio(=estimates/SE), Fixed Index, SE : Standard error

Table 10

Variance Testing between MFS subscales

^*** : p<0.001. MFS : Mental Fitness Scale, C.R. ratio : Critical ratio(=estimates/SE), Fixed Index, SE : Standard error

References

1. Cho SH, Woo JM, Kim W, Byun KR, Kang EH, Choi SW, et al. The Development of the 'mental fitness' Scale. J Korean Neuropsychiatr Assoc. 2011; 50:116–124.

2. Park KB. Multivariate Analysis. Seoul: Hakjisa;2000.

3. Lee SM. Basics of Factor Analysis. Seoul: EducationScience Books;2000.

4. Watson D, Clark LA, Tellegen A. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988; 54:1063–1070.

5. Lee HH, Kim EJ, Lee MK. A validation study of Korean positive and negative affect schedule: The PANAS scales. Korean J Clin Psych. 2003; 22:935–946.

6. Beck AT, Steer RA. Beck depression inventory manual. San Antonio: Psychological Corporation;1993.

7. Lee YH, Song JY. A study of the reliability and the validity of the BDI, SDS, and MMPI-D Scales. Korean J Clin Psychol. 1991; 10:98–113.

8. Anderson JC, Gerbing DW. Structural equation modeling in practice: a review and recommended two-step approach. Psychol Bull. 1988; 103:411–423.

9. Bae RB. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS 7: Basic Concepts, Applications. Seoul: ChungRam Books;2007.

10. Sung TJ. Item Analysis : Theory and Practice. Seoul: Hakjisa;1996.

11. Ebel RL. Measuring educational achievement. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall;1965.

12. Hong SH. The criteria for selecting appropriate fit indices in structural equation modeling and their rationales. Korean J Clin Psychol. 2000; 19:161–177.

13. Ryan RM, Frederick C. On energy, personality, and health: subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. J Pers. 1997; 65:529–565.

14. Diener E. Subjective well-being. Psychol Bull. 1984; 95:542–575.

15. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being in adult life. Curr Direct Psychol Sci. 1995; 4:99–104.

16. Salovey P, Mayer JD. Emotional intelligence. Imaging Cogn Person. 1990; 9:185–211.

17. Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification. New York: Oxford University Press;2004.

18. Lopes PN, Brackett MA, Nezlek JB, Schütz A, Sellin I, Salovey P. Emotional intelligence and social interaction. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2004; 30:1018–1034.

19. Der Foo M, Elfenbein HA, Tan HH, Aik VC. Emotional intelligence and negotiation: the tension between creating and claiming value. Intern J Confl Manag. 2004; 15:411–429.

20. Costa PT, McCrae RR. Neo PI-R professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources;1992. Vol 396.

21. Keyes CL, Shmotkin D, Ryff CD. Optimizing well-being: the empirical encounter of two traditions. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002; 82:1007–1022.

22. White K, Lehman DR. Culture and social comparison seeking: the role of self-motives. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2005; 31:232–242.

23. Diener E, Diener M, Diener C. Factors predicting the subjective well-being of nations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1995; 69:851–864.

24. Goleman D. What Makes a Leader?. In : Porter LW, Angle HL, Allen RW, editors. Organizational Influence Processes. 2nd ed. New York: ME Sharpe;2003. p. 229–241.

25. Kang SH. Reliability. Seoul: Kyoyook Book;2004.

26. Crawford CB. Determining the number of interpretable factors. Psychol Bull. 1975; 82:226–237.

27. Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparison of five rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Bull. 1986; 99:432–442.

TOOLS

Similar articles