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

Abstract

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.

The factor structure of ADHD in a general population of primary school children

“…As both the second‐order and bifactor models were overfactored, alternative ‘incomplete’ versions of these models were created by removing the hyperactivity factor in both models (Chen et al., 2006; Brown, Finney, & France, 2011). As shown in Tables 1 and 2 the incomplete bifactor model had a significantly better fit than the incomplete second‐order model both when using parent (Δχ 2 = 668.75, df = 12, p < 0.001) and teacher (Δχ 2 = 1,276.98, df = 12, p < 0.001) data.…”

“…Moreover, as the domain specific factors in the bifactor model is similar to the residual variances of the lower order factors in the second-order models (Chen et al, 2006), it is not surprising that the bifactor model met estimation problems as the domain specific hyperactivity factor had virtually no variance left after controlling for the general factor. As both the second-order and bifactor models were overfactored, alternative 'incomplete' versions of these models were created by removing the hyperactivity factor in both models (Chen et al, 2006;Brown, Finney, & France, 2011). As shown in Tables 1 and 2 the incomplete bifactor model had a significantly better fit than the incomplete secondorder model both when using parent (Dv 2 = 668.75, df = 12, p < 0.001) and teacher (Dv 2 = 1,276.98, df = 12, p < 0.001) data.…”

Development of a reactance scale for human–computer interaction

“…The multi-factor structure of the HPRS is still a matter of debate. It is argued that it should better be treated as a single factor measure [14,15]. Another questionnaire is the Therapeutic Reactance Scale (TRS) (28 items) which was published by Dowd et al [7].…”

Low-Stakes Testing and Psychological Reactance: Using the Hong Psychological Reactance Scale to Better Understand Compliant and Non-Compliant Examinees

“…However, due to inconsistent findings in the literature, additional study of the factor structure of the HPRS items is necessary. Brown, Finney, and France (2011) addressed these inconsistencies in factor structure by testing the various models championed in the literature: a one-factor model, four-factor model, second-order model, and bifactor model (Figure 1). The one-factor model specifies the presence of a general reactance factor that accounts for the common variance across all 14 items.…”