4.5 Article

Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Metabolic Syndrome: Is the Assessment of the Metabolic Syndrome Stable Over Time?

期刊

ANNALS OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 21, 期 2, 页码 111-117

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2010.10.001

关键词

Factor Analysis; Metabolic Syndrome X

资金

  1. E.L. Wiegand Foundation
  2. Washington State University
  3. Providence Medical Research Center
  4. Sacred Heart Medical Center

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PURPOSE: Without verification of longitudinal measurement invariance, researchers cannot be certain whether observed change in the metabolic syndrome reflects true change or changes in assessment or structure of the construct over time. This research tested longitudinal measurement invariance of a 1-factor model of the metabolic syndrome during the course of 6 years. METHODS: Tests of longitudinal measurement invariance (configural, metric, and scalar) were conducted on 604 men and women who participated in the Spokane Heart Study from 1996 to 2006. Metabolic syndrome indicators included body mass index, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein, diastolic blood pressure, and fasting glucose. RESULTS: Sequential configural and metric invariance models demonstrated adequate model fit, but the scalar invariance model led to a decrement in fit. Therefore, the theoretical framework of the syndrome and the relationships between the syndrome construct and the indicators appear to be equivalent over time. However, observed values of the metabolic syndrome indicators may differ across time when there is a constant level of the syndrome. CONCLUSIONS: Because longitudinal invariance was not fully demonstrated, interpretation of change in the metabolic syndrome over time may be misleading because change may be partly attributable to measurement properties of the indicators. However, a cross-sectional 1-factor model of the metabolic syndrome is supported. Ann Epidemiol 2011;21:111-117. (C) 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据