IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0084011.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Assessment Type Matter? A Measurement Invariance Analysis of Online and Paper and Pencil Assessment of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE)

Author

Listed:
  • Marloes Vleeschouwer
  • Chris D Schubart
  • Cecile Henquet
  • Inez Myin-Germeys
  • Willemijn A van Gastel
  • Manon H J Hillegers
  • Jim J van Os
  • Marco P M Boks
  • Eske M Derks

Abstract

Background: The psychometric properties of an online test are not necessarily identical to its paper and pencil original. The aim of this study is to test whether the factor structure of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE) is measurement invariant with respect to online vs. paper and pencil assessment. Method: The factor structure of CAPE items assessed by paper and pencil (N = 796) was compared with the factor structure of CAPE items assessed by the Internet (N = 21,590) using formal tests for Measurement Invariance (MI). The effect size was calculated by estimating the Signed Item Difference in the Sample (SIDS) index and the Signed Test Difference in the Sample (STDS) for a hypothetical subject who scores 2 standard deviations above average on the latent dimensions. Results: The more restricted Metric Invariance model showed a significantly worse fit compared to the less restricted Configural Invariance model (χ2(23) = 152.75, p

Suggested Citation

  • Marloes Vleeschouwer & Chris D Schubart & Cecile Henquet & Inez Myin-Germeys & Willemijn A van Gastel & Manon H J Hillegers & Jim J van Os & Marco P M Boks & Eske M Derks, 2014. "Does Assessment Type Matter? A Measurement Invariance Analysis of Online and Paper and Pencil Assessment of the Community Assessment of Psychic Experiences (CAPE)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(1), pages 1-9, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0084011
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084011
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084011
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0084011&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0084011?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Hans Jaich & Sarah Margaretha Jastram & Knut Blind, 2023. "Spillover of Social Norms at Work On Employees’ Self-Reported Private Sphere Pro-Environmental Behaviour: A Mixed Method Investigation," Schmalenbach Journal of Business Research, Springer, vol. 75(4), pages 519-547, December.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0084011. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.