Construct validity of the LSB-50 in argentinean adults: cross-validation and factorial invariance
Keywords:LSB-50, screening, construct validity, factorial invariance, cross-validation
AbstractThis paper aims at obtaining evidence of validity of the LSB-50 (De Rivera & Abuín, 2012), a screening measure of psychopathology, in Argentinean adults. The sample consisted of 1291 individuals (49% males; 51% females) between 18 and 89 years-old (M = 38.9, SD = 16.49). A cross-validation study and factorial invariance studies were performed to test, in samples divided by sex and age, if a seven-factor structure that corresponds to seven clinical scales (Hypersensitivity, Obsessive-Compulsive, Anxiety, Hostility, Somatization, Depression, and Sleep disturbance) was adequate for the LSB-50. The seven-factor structure showed a good fit in all the subsamples. Next, the fit of the seven-factor structure was studied simultaneously in the aforementioned subsamples, through hierarchical models that imposed different constrains of equivalency. Results indicated the invariance of the seven clinical dimensions of the LSB-50. Ordinal alphas showed good internal consistency for all the scales. Finally, correlations with a diagnostic measure of psychopathology –el Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 2007)– indicated, as expected, moderate convergence. It is concluded that the analyses performed provide robust evidence of construct validity for the LSB-50.
Download data is not yet available.
How to Cite
de la Iglesia, G., Stover, J. B., Castro Solano, A., & Fernández Liporace, M. (2015). Construct validity of the LSB-50 in argentinean adults: cross-validation and factorial invariance. Acción Psicológica, 12(2), 43–58. https://doi.org/10.5944/ap.12.2.15327
Artículos de temática libre [Selection of articles]
Accion Psicologica is published under Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial (CC BY-NC). The opinions and contents of the articles published in Acción Psicológica are responsibility of the authors and do not compromise the scientific and political opinion of the journal. Authors are also responsible for providing copies of the raw data, ratings, and, in general, relevant experimental material to interested readers.