Psychometric evaluation of the malay version of the family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scale III for Malaysian adolescents
The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale III (FACES-III) has been widely used to measure an individual's family functioning in terms of cohesion and adaptability. In Malaysia, the FACES-III has been translated into the Malay language for the community, but its psychometric properties in this...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
MDPI
2022
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://eprints.sunway.edu.my/2977/1/Wu%20Shin%20Ling_Psychometric%20evaluation%20of%20the%20malay%20version%20of%20the%20family%20adaptability.pdf http://eprints.sunway.edu.my/2977/ https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010156 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Summary: | The Family Adaptability and Cohesion Scale III (FACES-III) has been widely used to measure an individual's family functioning in terms of cohesion and adaptability. In Malaysia, the FACES-III has been translated into the Malay language for the community, but its psychometric properties in this context remain unknown. Thus, the purpose of this research is to examine the psychometric properties of the Malay version of the FACES-III in 852 adolescents attending secondary schools in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Data were randomly split into two halves: the exploration sample and the validation sample. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the exploration sample and a two-factor model was discovered after removing nine items that showed low factor loading. Then, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted on the validation sample to compare the one-factor models, two-factor models, and three-factor models. Results showed that the 11-item two-factor model (FACES-III-M-SF) was superior to the other competing models. Both the exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses replicated the two-factor structure of the original version of FACES-III. The reliability of the overall scale was consistently good, but the subscale results were mixed. This suggests that researchers should use the overall score, but not the subscale scores, in analyses. |
|---|