Evaluation of a bifactor model and psychometric properties of FACES III in Peruvian students

Keywords: Factorial analysis, evaluation indices, bifactor model, internal consistency, goodness of fit


Background: To analyze the internal structure of the Family Adaptability and Cohesion Evaluation Scales-FACES III by evaluating three tentative models. Method: Non-probability sampling of 306 Peruvian students of both sexes between 15 and 26 years of age. The structural properties and internal consistency of the Original, Bifactorial and One-dimensional models were studied in detail. Results: The bifactorial model has a better fit than the remaining models, but was discarded as it does not satisfy the criteria of the suggested evaluation indices. Likewise, difficulties are observed in the internal consistency of the Flexibility subscale except for the One-Dimensional Model. Conclusion: FACES III is an instrument with consistency and internal structure problems directly associated with the presence of the Flexibility subscale as reported in previous studies.


Download data is not yet available.


Bazo-Álvarez, J.C., Bazo-Álvarez, O.A., Águila, J., Peralta, F., Mormontoy, W., & Bennett, I.M. (2016). Propiedades psicométricas de la escala de funcionalidad familiar faces-III: un estudio en adolescentes peruanos. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Pública, 33(3), 462-70. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2016.333.2299

Bazo-Álvarez, J.C., Bazo-Álvarez, O.A., Águila, J., Peralta, F., Mormontoy, W., & Bennett, I.M. (2017). El modelo circumplejo tridimensional (3-D): sobre las mediciones no-curvilíneas del FACES-III. Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica, 34(1), 152-153. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2017.341.2782

Bell, R.Q. (1980). Parant/adolescent relationship in families with runaways: Interaction types and circumplex model. (Tesis Doctoral).University of Minnesota.

Copez, A., & Domínguez, S.A. (2017). ¿Es necesario un análisis completo del perfil del FACES-III? Rev Peru Med Exp Salud Publica, 34(1), 151-152. https://doi.org/10.17843/rpmesp.2017.341.2781

Cucina, J., & Byle, K. (2017). Article The Bifactor Model Fits Better Than the Higher-Order Model in More Than 90% of Comparisons for Mental Abilities Test Batteries. J. Intell, 5 (27), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence5030027.

Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor Indices Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models. https://doi.org/10.13023/edp.tool.01

Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39-50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104.

Freiberg, H., Stover, J., de la Iglesia, G., & Fernández, M. (2013). Correlaciones Policóricas y tetracóricas en estudios factoriales exploratorios y confirmatorios. Ciencias Psicológicas, 7(2), 151-164. Disponible en: http://www.scielo.edu.uy/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S168842212013000200005&lng=es&tlng=es

Gouveia, V.V., & Soares, A.K.S (2015). Calculadora de validade de construto (CVC). João Pessoa, PB: BNCS/Universidade Federal da Paraíba. Disponible en: http://akssoares.com/psicometria/calculadora-vme-e-cc

Hair, J., Anderson, R., Tatham, R., & Black, W. (1999). Análisis multivariante. 5a Ed. Madrid, España: Prentice Hall.

Hammer, J. H. (2016). Construct Replicability Calculator: A Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate the Hancock and Mueller (2001) H index [software de cálculo]. Disponible en: http://drjosephhammer.com

Hancock, G. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to betweengroups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psychometrika, 66, 373–388. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294440.

Hu L. T., & Bentler P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equ. Modeling 6 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

Ide, B., Dingmann, C., Cuevas, E., & Meehan, M. (2010). Psychometric Testing of the FACES III with Rural Adolescents. Journal of Family Social Work, 13, 410–419. https://doi.org/10.1080/10522150903513993

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychol. Methods, 1, 130–149. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130

João, M., Martínez, P., & Cervera-Enguix, S. (2002) Confirmatory Factor Analysis, Reliability, and Validity of a Spanish Version of FACES III. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 30 (5), 439-449. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180260296332

Martínez-Pampliega, A., Iraugi, I., & Sanz, M. (2011). Validez estructural del FACES 20-Esp: versión española de 20 ítems de la escala de evaluación de la cohesión y adaptabilidad familiar. RIDEP. 2011; 29 (1), 147–65. Disponible en: http://www.aidep.org/03_ridep/R29/r29art8.pdf

Olson, D.H., Portner, J., & Bell, R. (1982). FACES II: Family adaptability and cohesion evaluation scales. Minnesota: Family Social Science, University of Minnesota.

Olson, D.H. (1985). FACES III: Family Social Science. Minnesota: University of Minnesota.

Olson, D. H. (1986). Circumplex model VII: Validation studies and FACES III. Family Process, 25(3), 337–351. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1545-5300.1986.00337.x

Olson, D.H. (2000). Circumplex Model of Marital and Family Systems. Journal of Family Therapy, 22 (2), 144-167. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6427.00144

Revelle, W., & Zinbarg, R.E. (2009). Coefficients Alpha, Beta, Omega, and the GLB: Comments on Sijtsma. Psychometrika, 74(1), 145-154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-008-9102-z

Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(3), 223-237. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1089249

Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Evaluating Bifactor Models: Calculating and Interpreting Statistical Indices. Psychological Methods, 21(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000045.

Schmidt, V., Barreyro, J.P., & Maglio, A.L. (2010). Escala de evaluación del funcionamiento familiar FACES III: ¿Modelo de dos o tres factores? Escritos de Psicología, 3(2), 30-36. Disponible en: http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=271019811003

Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach”s alpha. Psychometrika, 74(1), 107-120. https://doi.org/10.1007/S11336-008-9101-0.

Stucky, B. D., & Edelen, M. O. (2015). Using hierarchical IRT models to create unidimensional measures from multidimensional data. In S. P. Reise & D. A. Revicki (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment, (pp. 183-206). New York: Routledge.

Ten-Berge, J. M., & Socan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613 - 625. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858

Villarreal-Zegarra, D., & Paz-Jesús, A. (2017). Cohesión, adaptabilidad y composición familiar en adolescentes del Callao, Perú. Propósitos y Representaciones, 5(2), 21 - 64. https://doi.org/10.20511/pyr2017.v5n2.158

Wu M. L. (2013). Questionnaire Statistical Analysis Practice-SPSS Operation and Application. Chongqing: Chongqing University Press.

How to Cite
Caycho Caja, A., & Castilla Arias, C. (2020). Evaluation of a bifactor model and psychometric properties of FACES III in Peruvian students. Interacciones, 6(2), e160. https://doi.org/10.24016/2020.v6n2.160
Original paper