4.2 Article

An Empirical Comparison of Competing Factor Structures for the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status: A Project FRONTIER Study

Journal

ARCHIVES OF CLINICAL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY
Volume 31, Issue 1, Pages 88-96

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/arclin/acv057

Keywords

Validity; Factor analysis; Statistical model; Cognition; Neuropsychology

Funding

  1. National Institute on Aging (NIA)
  2. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities(NIMHD) of the National Institutes of Health [R01AG039389, P30AG12300, L60MD001849]
  3. Hogg Foundation for Mental Health [JRG-040, JRG-149]
  4. Environmental Protection Agency [RD834794]
  5. National Academy of Neuropsychology
  6. Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center F. Marie Hall Institute for Rural & Community Health
  7. Garrison Institute on Aging

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The original factor structure of the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) has received little empirical support, but at least eight alternative factor structures have been identified in the literature. The current study used confirmatory factor analysis to compare the original RBANS model with eight alternatives, which were adjusted to include a general factor. Participant data were obtained from Project FRONTIER, an epidemiological study of rural health, and comprised 341 adults (229 women, 112 men) with mean age of 61.2 years (SD = 12.1) and mean education of 12.4 years (SD = 3.3). A bifactor version of the model proposed by Duff and colleagues provided the best fit to the data (CFI = 0.98; root-mean-squared error of approximation = 0.07), but required further modification to produce appropriate factor loadings. The results support the inclusion of a general factor and provide partial replication of the Duff and colleagues RBANS model.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available