Using the Bifactor Model to Assess the Dimensionality of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale

The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale (HPRS) purports to measure reactance: a motivational state experienced when a behavioral freedom is threatened with elimination. To date, five studies have examined the psychometric properties of the HPRS, but reached different conclusions regarding its factor structure. The current study further investigated the factor structure of the HPRS by testing four competing models using responses from 1,282 college students. A modified bifactor model, in which a general reactance factor explained common variance among all the items and specific factors explained shared residual variance among sets of items, was championed. Implications for estimating reliability and scoring the HPRS are discussed.

[1]  Sung-Mook Hong,et al.  A Psychological Reactance Scale: Development, Factor Structure and Reliability , 1989 .

[2]  Walter C. Buboltz,et al.  The Hong Psychological Reactance Scale: A Confirmatory Factor Analysis , 2001 .

[3]  David Rindskopf,et al.  Structural Equation Models , 1984 .

[4]  P. Bentler,et al.  Fit indices in covariance structure modeling : Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification , 1998 .

[5]  S. Wise,et al.  The Therapeutic Reactance Scale: A Measure of Psychological Reactance , 1991 .

[6]  J. Brehm,et al.  Psychological Reactance: A Theory of Freedom and Control , 1981 .

[7]  S. West,et al.  A Comparison of Bifactor and Second-Order Models of Quality of Life , 2006, Multivariate behavioral research.

[8]  J. Dillard,et al.  On the Nature of Reactance and its Role in Persuasive Health Communication , 2005 .

[9]  Kristopher J Preacher,et al.  Repairing Tom Swift's Electric Factor Analysis Machine , 2003 .

[10]  J. Immekus,et al.  Dimensionality Assessment Using the Full-Information Item Bifactor Analysis for Graded Response Data , 2008 .

[11]  P. Bentler,et al.  Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis : Conventional criteria versus new alternatives , 1999 .

[12]  S. Reise,et al.  Factor analysis and scale revision. , 2000, Psychological assessment.

[13]  Klaas Sijtsma,et al.  Reliability Beyond Theory and Into Practice , 2008, Psychometrika.

[14]  J. Dillard,et al.  Psychometric Properties of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale , 2005, Journal of personality assessment.

[15]  Peggy Yuhas Byers,et al.  Factorial Validity of Merz's Psychological Reactance Scale , 1987 .

[16]  Fadia Nasser,et al.  On the Use of Factor Analysis as a Research Tool. , 1998 .

[17]  R. P. McDonald,et al.  Test Theory: A Unified Treatment , 1999 .

[18]  Sung-Mook Hong.  Hong's Psychological Reactance Scale: A Further Factor Analytic Validation , 1992 .

[19]  R. Ostini,et al.  Further Evaluation of Merz's Psychological Reactance Scale , 1989 .

[20]  Walter C. Buboltz,et al.  Evaluating the Factor Structure and Internal Consistency Reliability of the Therapeutic Reactance Scale , 2002 .

[21]  E. Thomas Dowd,et al.  Motivational Components of Client Reactance , 1993 .

[22]  W. Revelle,et al.  Estimating ω h for Structures Containing Two Group Factors: Perils and Prospects , 2007 .

[23]  Sung-Mook Hong,et al.  Refinement of the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale , 1996 .

[24]  Steven P. Reise,et al.  The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures , 2007, Quality of Life Research.

[25]  Walter C. Buboltz,et al.  Psychological Reactance: Factor Structure and Internal Consistency of the Questionnaire for the Measurement of Psychological Reactance , 2001, The Journal of social psychology.

[26]  E. Giannakopoulos,et al.  The relationship of satisfaction with life to personality characteristics. , 1994, The Journal of psychology.

[27]  S. Reise,et al.  Bifactor Models and Rotations: Exploring the Extent to Which Multidimensional Data Yield Univocal Scale Scores , 2010, Journal of personality assessment.