La estructura de las actitudes hacia las personas con discapacidadmodelos de redes y modelos estructurales

  1. RODRÍGUEZ-MEDINA, Jairo 1
  2. ARIAS, Víctor 2
  3. JIMÉNEZ-RUIZ, María 1
  4. RODRÍGUEZ-NAVARRO, Henar 1
  5. RUBIA-AVI, Bartolomé 1
  6. ARIAS, Benito 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Valladolid
    info

    Universidad de Valladolid

    Valladolid, España

    ROR https://ror.org/01fvbaw18

  2. 2 Universidad de Salamanca
    info

    Universidad de Salamanca

    Salamanca, España

    ROR https://ror.org/02f40zc51

Journal:
Siglo Cero: Revista Española sobre Discapacidad Intelectual

ISSN: 2530-0350

Year of publication: 2018

Volume: 49

Issue: 1

Pages: 69-87

Type: Article

DOI: 10.14201/SCERO20184916987 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Siglo Cero: Revista Española sobre Discapacidad Intelectual

Abstract

The study aims to examine the structure of third sector professionals’ attitudes towards people with disabilities. A novel approach is proposed from network psychometrics called exploratory graph analysis, in which the nodes represent the attitudes and the relational links represent the estimated statistical relationships. The Attitudes Scale toward Persons with Disabilities was applied, and 976 professionals participated, with an age range between 18 and 65 years. We compared the results of the three factor model obtained by confirmatory factor analysis with the structure of the attitude network. A high correspondence was observed between the items that make up the first factor of the model and the grouping of the nodes that represent them in the network. In addition, the nodes with the lowest centrality index corresponded with the least reliable indicators in the factorial model. In the network graph, the items were grouped into approximately three clusters; however, strong links were also observed between indicators belonging to different groups, which could help explain the empirical evidence in favourof a general attitude factor.

€ View funding

Funding information

Se comparó el ajuste de las diferentes estructuras obtenidas a través del análisis ex-ploratorio de grafos y paralelo optimizado mediante análisis factorial confirmatorio. Ambos modelos se estimaron mediante mínimos cuadrados ponderados “WLSMV”. Se contrastó la bondad de ajuste mediante los índices de ajuste comparativo (CFI) y Tucker-Lewis (TLI) y la raíz del error cuadrático medio de aproximación (RMSEA). Se considera que índices CFI y TLI superiores a .90 indican grados de ajuste acepta-bles y por encima de .95 buenos (Hu y Bentler, 1999). En el caso del RMSEA, valores iguales o inferiores a .05 se interpretan como buenos e inferiores a .08 como acepta-bles (Browne y Cudeck, 1992; Hu y Bentler, 1999). Se siguieron las recomendaciones de Chen (2007) y Cheung y Rensvold (2002), según las cuales incrementos menores a .010 en CFI y TLI y decrementos menores a .015 en RMSEA sugieren que no hay cambios relevantes en el ajuste de un modelo respecto del siguiente más restrictivo, para establecer la relevancia de las diferencias de ajuste entre modelos. Los diferentes análisis se realizaron mediante los programas R, versión 3.4.1 (R Core Team, 2017), y FACTOR, versión 10.5.03 (Lorenzo-Seva y Ferrando, 2013).

Funders

Bibliographic References

  • Arias, B. (1993). Evaluación de actitudes hacia la integración de alumnos con necesidades educativas especiales (Tesis doctoral no publicada). Salamanca: Universidad de Salamanca.
  • Arias, B., Verdugo, M. Á., y Rubio, V. J. (1995). Evaluación de la actividad Modelo Local de Valladolid. Madrid: Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia.
  • Arias, V., Arias, B., Verdugo, M. Á., Rubia-Avi, M., y Jenaro, C. (2016). Evaluación de actitudes de los profesionales hacia las personas con discapacidad. Siglo Cero. Revista Española Sobre Discapacidad Intelectual, 47(2), 7-41. doi:10.14201/scero2016472741
  • Boo, L. S. H., y Nie, Y. (2017). Attitude towards persons with intellectual disability scale: Further development. Current Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s12144-017-9560-5.
  • Borsboom, D., y Cramer, A. (2013). Network analysis: An integrative approach to the structure of psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 9, 91-121. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050212-185608.
  • Borsboom, D., Fried, E., Epskamp, S., Waldorp, L., Van Borkulo, C., Van Der Maas, H., y Cramer, A. (2017). False alarm? A comprehensive reanalysis of “Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability” by Forbes, Wright, Markon, y Krueger. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 989-999. doi:10.1037/abn0000306.
  • Brooks, S. P. (2002). Discussion on the paper by Spiegelhalter, Best, Carlin, and van de Linde (2002). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology, 64(3), 616-618.
  • Browne, M. W. y Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods y Research, 21(2), 230-258. doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005.
  • Carlin, B. P. y Louis, T. A. (2001). Bayes and Empirical Bayes Methods for Data Analysis Essays on Item Response Theory. Second edition. New York: Chapman y Hall.
  • Cattell R. B. (1966). Handbook of Multivariate Experimental Psychology. Chicago: Springer.
  • Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. doi:10.1080/10705510701301834.
  • Cheung, G. W. y Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5.
  • Dalege, J., Borsboom, D., van Harreveld, F., van den Berg, H., Conner, M., y van der Maas, H. L. J. (2016). Toward a formalized account of attitudes: The Causal Attitude Network (CAN) model. Psychological Review, 123(1), 2–22. doi:10.1037/a0039802.
  • Efron, B. (1979). Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. The Annals of Statistics, 7(1), 1–26.
  • Epskamp, S., Borsboom, D., y Fried, E. I. (2017). Estimating psychological networks and their accuracy: A tutorial paper. Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. doi:10.3758/s13428-017-0862-1.
  • Epskamp, S., Kruis, J., y Marsman, M. (2017). Estimating psychopathological networks: Be careful what you wish for. PLoS ONE, 12(6). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0179891
  • Epskamp, S., Maris, G., Waldorp, L. J., y Borsboom. D. (2016). Network psychometrics. En Irwing, P., Hughes, D., y Booth, T. (Eds.), Handbook of Psychometrics. New York: Wiley.
  • Epskamp, S., Rhemtulla, M., y Borsboom, D. (2017). Generalized network psychometrics: Combining network and latent variable models. Psychometrika. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s11336-017-9557-x.
  • Findler L., Vilchinsky N. y Werner S. (2007) The Multidimensional Attitudes Scale toward persons with disabilities (MAS): construction and validation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 50(3), 166–76. doi:10.1177/00343552070500030401.
  • Fonseca-Pedrero, E. (2017). Análisis de redes: ¿una nueva forma de comprender la psicopatología? Revista de Psiquiatría y Salud Mental, 10(4), 206–215. doi:10.1016/j.rpsm.2017.06.004.
  • Forbes, M. K., Wright, A. G. C., Markon, K. E., y Krueger, R. F. (2017). Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 969–988. doi:10.1037/abn0000276.
  • Fried, E. I., Epskamp, S., Nesse, R. M., Tuerlinckx, F., y Borsboom, D. (2016). What are ‘good’ depression symptoms? Comparing the centrality of DSM and non-DSM symptoms of depression in a network analysis. Journal of Affective Disorders, 189, 314–320. doi:10.1016/j.jad.2015.09.005. Golino, H. F., y Demetriou, A. (2017). Estimating the dimensionality of intelligence like data using Exploratory Graph Analysis. Intelligence, 62, 54–70. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.02.007
  • Golino, H. F., y Epskamp, S. (2017). Exploratory graph analysis: A new approach for estimating the number of dimensions in psychological research. PLoS ONE, 12(6), 1–38. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0174035.
  • Guttman, L. (1954). Some necessary conditions for common-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 19(2), 149–161. Horn J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–85.
  • Hu, L. y Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118.
  • Keith, T. Z., Caemmerer, J.M., y Reynolds, M. R. (2016). Comparison of methods for factor extraction for cognitive test-like data: Which overfactor, which underfactor? Intelligence, 54, 37–54. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.11.003.
  • Lorenzo-Seva, U., y Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2 A comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 497-498.
  • Morin, D., Crocker, A. G., Beaulieu-Bergeron, R., y Caron, J. (2013). Validation of the attitudes toward intellectual disability - ATTID questionnaire. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 57(3), 268–278. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2012.01559.
  • Power, M. J., y Green, A. M. (2010). The Attitudes to Disability Scale (ADS): Development and psychometric properties. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 54(9), 860–874. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01317.
  • Pelleboer-Gunnink, H. A., Van Oorsouw, W. M. W. J., Van Weeghel, J., y Embregts, P. J. C. M. (2017). Mainstream health professionals’ stigmatising attitudes towards people with intellectual disabilities: a systematic review. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 61(5), 411–434. doi:10.1111/jir.12353
  • R Core Team (2017). R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from https://www.Rproject.org/.
  • Scior, K. (2011). Public awareness, attitudes and beliefs regarding intellectual disability: A systematic review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32(6), 2164–2182. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.07.005
  • Schwarz, G. E. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics,6(2), 461–464.
  • Symons, A. B., Fish, R., McGuigan, D., Fox, J., y Akl, E. A. (2012). Development of an instrument to measure medical students’ attitudes toward people with disabilities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50(3), 251–260. doi:10.1352/1934-9556-50.3.251.
  • Tibshirani, R. (1996). Regression shrinkage and selection via the lasso. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B: Statistical Methodology, 58(1), 267–288.
  • Timmerman, M. E., y Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2011). Dimensionality assessment of ordered polytomous items with parallel analysis. Psychological Methods, 16(2), 209-220. doi:10.1037/a0023353.
  • Van Borkulo, C. D., Boschloo, L., Kossakowski, J. J., Tio, P., Schoevers, R. A., Borsboom, D., y Waldorp, L. J. (2016). Comparing network structures on three aspects: A permutation test. Advance online publication. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.29455.38569.
  • Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41(3), 321–7.
  • Verdugo, M. Á., Arias, B., y Jenaro, C. (1994). Actitudes hacia las personas con minusvalía. Madrid: Instituto Nacional de Servicios Sociales.
  • Verdugo, M. Á., Jenaro, C., y Arias, B. (1995). Actitudes sociales y profesionales hacia las personas con discapacidad: estrategias de evaluación e intervención. En M. Á. Verdugo (Dir.), Personas con discapacidad: perspectivas psicopedagógicas y rehabilitadoras (pp. 79- 143). México: Siglo XXI.
  • Wasserman, S., y Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Data source: Dialnet