ArticleHeliyon2024
Assessing the dimensionality of the sense of coherence scale (SOC-L9) using Ghanaian university students: Guarding against the method effect.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The dimensionality of the sense of coherence (SOC-L9) scale has been in contention due to the varied factor structure revealed in the literature. In this study, we assessed the dimensionality of the SOC-L9 scale using Ghanaian university students while guarding against the method effect. The study also examined the gender measurement invariance of the scale. Methods: This research conveniently sampled 1062 students who responded to the SOC-L9 scale with negative items reversed to positive items. A larger proportion of the participants were male students (n = 769, 72.4 %), with 293(27.6 %) being female students. The youngest participant was 18 years old, whereas the oldest was 42 years old. Following all validation studies protocols, four distinct confirmatory factor analysis models were fitted and compared (i.e., unidimensional, three-factor first-order, three-factor second-order and bifactor models). Results: The initial model comparison revealed that the bifactor CFA model [CFI = 0.958, SRMR = 0.036, AIC = 21231.35, BIC = 21370.45] was superior to the unidimensional [CFI = 0.914, SRMR = 0.046, AIC = 26280.67, BIC = 26414.8] and 3-factor models [CFI = 0.932, SRMR = 0.040, AIC = 26221.67, BIC = 26370.71]. Upon further probing, it was discovered that SOC-L9 functions best as a unidimensional scale for the university student population. Gender measurement invariance was established for configural invariance [CFI = 0.986, SRMR = 0.044], metric invariance [CFI = 0.894, SRMR = 0.051] and scalar invariance [CFI = 0.983, SRMR = 0.047]. Conclusion: The SOC-L9 scale has a nested structure with the various sub-scales interacting to produce a summary total observed score. The structure of the SOC-L9 requires scholars to treat the scale as a unidimensional scale rather than a multidimensional one. This latent structure was found to be consistent with male and female university students.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.