Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-5nwft Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-12T12:56:05.349Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rasch Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R) Scale

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 March 2015

Carrie Allison ,
Simon Baron-Cohen ,
Mark H Stone  and
Steven J Muncer
Carrie Allison
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge (UK)
Simon Baron-Cohen
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge (UK)
Mark H Stone
Affiliation:
Aurora University (USA)
Steven J Muncer*
Affiliation:
Teesside University (UK)
*
*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven J Muncer. Clinical Psychology. Teesside University. Teesside (UK). E-mail: S.Muncer@tees.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study assessed the dimensionality of the Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R), a measure of how strong a person's interest is in systems, using two statistical approaches: Rasch modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Participants included N = 675 with an autism spectrum condition (ASC), N = 1369 family members of people with ASC, and N = 2014 typical controls. Data were applied to the Rasch model (Rating Scale) using WINSTEPS. The data fit the Rasch model quite well lending support to the idea that systemizing could be seen as unidimensional. Reliability estimates were .99 for items and .92 for persons. A CFA parceling approach confirmed that a unidimensional model fit the data. There was, however, differential functioning by sex in some of these items. An abbreviated 44-item version of the scale, consisting of items without differential item functioning by sex was developed. This shorter scale also was tested from a Rasch perspective and confirmed through CFA. All measures showed differences on total scale scores between those participants with and without ASC (d = 0.71, p < .005), and between sexes (d = 0.53, p < .005). We conclude that the SQ-R is an appropriate measure of systemizing which can be measured along a single dimension.

Keywords

autism spectrum conditionssystemizingraschconfirmatory factor analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
The Spanish Journal of Psychology , Volume 18 , 2015 , E16
Copyright
Copyright © Universidad Complutense de Madrid and Colegio Oficial de Psicólogos de Madrid 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allison, C., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S. J., Stone, M., & Muncer, S. J. (2011). Psychometric analysis of the Empathy Quotient (EQ). Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 829–835. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.07.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aluja, A., & Blanch, A. (2004). Replicability of first-order 16PF-5 factors: An analysis of three parceling methods. Personality and Individual Differences, 37, 667–677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.001 Google Scholar
Andersen, E. B. (1977). Sufficient statistics and latent trait models. Psychometrika, 42, 69–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02293746 Google Scholar
Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). Amos (Version 7.0). Chicago, IL: SPSS.Google Scholar
Auyeung, B., Allison, C., Wheelwright, S., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2012). Brief report: Development of the adolescent empathy and systemizing quotients. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 2225–2235. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-012-1454-7 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Auyeung, B., Wheelwright, S., Allison, C., Atkinson, M., Samarawickrema, N., & Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). The children's empathy quotient and systemizing quotient: Sex differences in typical development and in autism spectrum conditions. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 1509–1521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-009-0772-x Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2002). The extreme male brain theory of autism. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 248–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6613(02)01904-6 Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S. (2009). Autism and the Empathizing–Systemizing (E-S) theory. In Zelazo, P. D., Chandler, M., & Crone, E. (Eds.), Developmental social cognitive neuroscience (pp. 125–138). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Baron-Cohen, S., Richler, J., Bisarya, D., Gurunathan, N., & Wheelwright, S. (2003). The systemizing quotient: An investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism, and normal sex differences. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London B Biological Sciences, 358, 361–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2002.1206 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Griffin, R., Lawson, J., & Hill, J. (2002). The exact mind: Empathising and systemising in autism spectrum conditions. In Goswami, U. (Ed.), Handbook of Cognitive Development. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Billington, J., Baron-Cohen, S., & Bor, D. (2008). Systemizing influences attentional processes during the Navon task: An fMRI study. Neuropsychologia, 46, 511–520. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2007.09.003 Google Scholar
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen, K. A. & Long, J. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136−162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 754–761. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//0022-006X.56.5.754 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research, 18, 447–460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9464-4 Google Scholar
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995). Factor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 7, 286–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037//1040-3590.7.3.286 Google Scholar
Geary, D. C., Saults, S. J., Liu, F., & Hoard, M. K. (2000). Sex differences in spatial cognition, computational fluency, and arithmetical reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 337–353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jecp.2000.2594 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs. Organizational Research Methods, 2, 757–765. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442819923002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kenny, D. A., & McCoach, D. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 10, 333–351. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1 Google Scholar
Landis, R. S., Beal, D. J., & Tesulk, P. E. (2000). A comparison of approaches to forming composite measures in structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 186–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/109442810032003 Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (1998). Structure in Rasch residuals: x (PCA)? Rasch Measurement Transactions, 12, 636.Google Scholar
Linacre, J. M. (2006). Winsteps Rasch measurement computer program. Chicago, IL: Winsteps.com.Google Scholar
Ling, J., Burton, T. C., Salt, J. L., & Muncer, S. J. (2009). Psychometric analysis of the systemizing quotient (SQ) scale. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 539–552. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712608X368261 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mavranezouli, I., Brazier, J. E., Young, T. A., & Barkham, M. (2011). Using Rasch analysis to form plausible health states amenable to valuation: The development of CORE-6D from a measure of common mental health problems (CORE-OM). Quality of Life Research, 20, 321–333. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-010-9768-4 Google Scholar
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factory analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1 Google Scholar
Nettle, D. (2007). Empathizing and systemizing: What are they, and what do they contribute to our understanding of psychological sex differences? British Journal of Psychology, 98, 237–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712606X117612 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Perline, R., Wright, B. D., & Wainer, H. (1979). The rasch model as additive conjoint measurement. Applied Psychological Measurement, 3, 237–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167900300213 Google Scholar
Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scheuneman, J. D., & Subhiyah, R. G. (1998). Evidence for the validity of a Rasch model technique for identifying differential item functioning. Journal of Outcome Measurement, 2, 33–42.Google Scholar
Steiger, J. H. (1989). EzPath: Causal modeling. Evanston, IL: Systat.Google Scholar
Tristan, A. (2006). An adjustment for sample size in differential item functioning analysis. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 20, 2.Google Scholar
Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Uchiyama, T., Yoshida, Y., Kuroda, M., & Wheelwright, S. (2007). Empathizing and systemizing in adults with and without autism spectrum conditions: Cross-cultural stability. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1823–1832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0316-6 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wakabayashi, A., Baron-Cohen, S., Wheelwright, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney, J., Fine, D., … Weil, L. (2006). Development of short forms of the Empathy Quotient (EQ-Short) and the Systemizing Quotient (SQShort). Personality and Individual Differences, 41, 929–940.Google Scholar
Wheelwright, S., Baron-Cohen, S., Goldenfeld, N., Delaney, J., Fine, D., Smith, R., … Wakabayashi, A. (2006). Predicting autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) from the Systemizing Quotient-Revised (SQ-R) and Empathy Quotient (EQ). Brain Research, 1079, 47–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2006.01.012 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wing, L. (1997). The autistic spectrum. London, UK: Pergamon.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (2004). Making measures. Chicago, IL: The Phaneron Press.Google Scholar
Yang, C., Nay, S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 122–142.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed