The structure of prosocial behavior. Its approach through the Multidimensional Item Response Theory’s two-factor model
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.24265/liberabit.2019.v25n1.04Keywords:
prosocial behavior, prosociality, multidimensional item response theory, two-factor modelAbstract
Problem and objectives: To find out if the structure of the prosocial behavior measured by the Prosocial Behavior Scale (PBS) can be represented by a general factor, i.e. prosociality, combined with specific factors: the subscales of the PBS. Method: The sample consisted of 692 subjects (65% females) recruited by a convenience sampling method and living in Greater Buenos Aires and inland areas of Argentina. The assumptions of unidimensionality and local dependence were checked. Then the relative fit was compared between three models of the Item Response Theory: Graded Response Model (GRM), Multidimensional Graded Response Model (MGRM) and Two-Factor Graded Response Model (TGRM). Results: The TGRM showed the best relative fit. This model was implemented by calculating the conditional and marginal parameters. Likewise, the ECV index was calculated. Conclusions: The PBS items were primarily influenced by prosociality. The Help subscale explained a significant proportion of the common variance. In contrast, the Comfort subscale, considered as a specific factor, explained a small part of said variance.
Downloads
References
American Psychological Association (2010). Ethical Principles for Psychologists and Code of Conduct. Washington, D.C.: APA.
Auné, S. E., Abal, F. J. P., & Attorresi, H. F. (2016). Antagonismos entre concepciones de empatía y su relación con la conducta prosocial. Revista de Psicología, 17(2), 137-149. doi: 10.18050/revpsi.v17n2a7.2015
Auné, S. E., & Attorresi, H. F. (2017). Dimensionalidad de un Test de Conducta Prosocial. Revista Evaluar, 17(1), 29-37.
Auné, S. E., Blum, G. D., Abal, F. J. P., Lozzia, G. S., & Attorresi, H. F. (2014). La conducta prosocial: Estado actual de la investigación. Perspectivas en Psicología, 11(2), 21-33.
Ayala, R. J. de (2009). The theory and practice of item response theory. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the False Discovery Rate: A Practical and Powerful Approach to Multiple Testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 57(1), 289-300.
Berge, J. M. ten, & Soèan G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613- 625.
Bjorner, J. B., Smith, K. J., Edelen, M. O., Stone, C., Thissen, D., & Sun, X. (2007). IRTFIT: A macro for item fit and local dependence tests under IRT models. Lincoln, RI: QualityMetric Incorporated.
Bock, R. D., & Gibbons, R. (2010). Factor analysis of categorical item responses. In M. L. Nering & R. Ostini (Eds.), Handbook of polytomous item response theory models (pp. 155-184). New York, NY: Routledge.
Cai, L. (2012). flexMIRT: Flexible multilevel item factor analysis and test scoring [Computer software]. Seattle, WA: Vector Psychometric Group, LLC.
Cai, L., Thissen, D., & Toit, S. du (2011). IRTPRO user’s guide. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientiûc Software International.
Cai, Y. (2015). The value of using test response data for content validity: An application of the bifactor-MIRT to a nursing knowledge test. Nurse Education Today, 35(12), 1181-1185. doi: 10.1016/j.nedt.2015.05.014
Caprara, G. V., Alessandri, G., & Eisenerg, N. (2012). Prosociality: the contribution of traits, values, and self-efficacy beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(6), 1289-1303. doi: 10.1037/a0025626
Caprara, G. V., & Pastorelli, C. (1993). Early emotional instability, prosocial behavior, and aggression: some methodological aspects. European Journal of Personality, 7(1), 19-36. doi: 10.1002/per.2410070103
Caprara, G. V., Steca, P., Zelli, A., & Capanna, C. (2005). A new scale for measuring adults’ prosocialness. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 21(2), 77-89. doi: 10.1027/1015-5759.21.2.77
Carlo, G., & Randall, B. A. (2002). The Development of a Measure of Prosocial Behaviors for Late Adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 31(1), 31-44. doi: 10.1023/A:1014033032440
Carrasco, C., & Trianes, M. V. (2010). Clima social, prosocialidad y violencia como predictores de inadaptación escolar en primaria. European Journal of Education and Psychology, 3(2), 229-242. https:/ /doi.org/10.30552/ejep.v3i2.54
Chen, W., & Thissen, D. (1997). Local dependence indixes for item pairs using item response theory. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 265-289. doi: 10.3102/10769986022003265
Cuadrado, E., Tabernero, C., García, R., Luque, B., & Seibert, J. (2017). The Role of Prosocialness and Trust in the Consumption of Water as a Limited Resource. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 694. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00694
Dunfield, K. A. (2014). A construct divided: prosocial behavior as helping, sharing, and comforting subtypes. Front. Psychol, 5, 958. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00958
Eisenberg, N., Eggum, N. D., & Giunta, L. di (2010). Empathy-Related Responding: Associations with Prosocial Behavior, Aggression, and Intergroup Relations. Social Issues and Policy Review, 4(1), 143-180. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-2409.2010.01020.x
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2014). Multidimensionality of prosocial behavior. Rethinking the conceptualization and development of prosocial behavior. In L. M. Padilla-Walker & G. Carlo (Eds.), Prosocial development: A multidimensional approach (pp. 17-39). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199964772.003.0002
Ferguson, E., Zhao, K., O’Carroll, R. E., & Smillie, L. D. (2018). Costless and Costly Prosociality: Correspondence Among Personality Traits, Economic Preferences, and Real-World Prosociality. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), 461-471. doi: 10.1177/1948550618765071
Ferrando, P. J., & Lorenzo-Seva, U. (2017). Program FACTOR at 10: Origins, development and future directions. Psicothema, 29(2), 236-240. doi: 10.7334/psicothema2016.304
Gatner, D. T., Douglas, K. S., & Hart, S. D. (2016). Examining the incremental and interactive effects of boldness with meanness and disinhibition within the triarchic model of psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 259-268. doi: 10.1037/per0000182
Gibbons, R. D., Bock, R. D., Hedeker, D., Weiss, D. J., Segawa, E., Bhaumik, D. K., ... Stover, A. (2007). Full-Information Item Bifactor Analysis of Graded Response Data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 31(1), 4-19. doi: 10.1177/0146621606289485
Gibbons, R. D., & Hedeker, D. R. (1992). Full- information bi-factor analysis. Psychometrika, 57(3), 423-436.
González, M. D. (2000). Conducta prosocial: Evaluación e Intervención. Madrid, España: Morata.
Hay, D. F., & Cook, K. V. (2007). The transformation of prosocial behavior from infancy to childhood. In C. A. Brownell & C. B. Kopp (Eds.), Socioemotional development in the toddler years: Transitions and transformations (pp. 100-131). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 1-55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Inderbitzen, H. M., & Foster, S. L. (1992). The Teenage Inventory of Social Skills: Development, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment, 4(4), 451- 459. doi: 0.1037/1040-3590.4.4.451
Kelley, K., & Lai, K. (2017). The MBESS R Package version 4.2.0. Recuperado de https://cran.r- project.org/web/packages/MBESS/MBESS.pdf
Knafo-Noam, A., Uzefovsky, F., Israel, S., Davidov, M., & Zahn-Waxler, C. (2015). The prosocial personality and its facets: genetic and environmental architecture of mother-reported behavior of 7-year-old twins. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 112. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00112
Ladd, G. W., & Profilet, S. M. (1996). The Child Behavior Scale: A teacher-report measure of young children’s aggressive, withdrawn, and prosocial behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 32(6), 1008-1024. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.32.6.1008
Langer, M. (2008). A reexamination of Lord’s Wald test for differential item functioning using item response theory and modern error estimation (Tesis doctoral, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill). Recuperada de https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/204e/ a4e24df2284f4c6833b73ec18a01964fe2ca.pdf
Lozano, L. M., García-Cueto, E., & Muñiz, J. (2008). Effect of the Number of Response Categories on the Reliability and Validity of Rating Scales. Methodology, 4(2), 73-79. doi: 10.1027/1614- 2241.4.2.73
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2005). Limited and full information estimation and testing in 2n Contingency Tables: A Unified Framework. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 100, 1009-1020. doi: 10.1198/016214504000002069
Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Joe, H. (2006). Limited Information Goodness-of-fit Testing in Multidimensional Contingency Tables. Psychometrika, 71, 713-732. doi: 10.1007/s11336- 005-1295-9
Mestre, M. V., Samper, P., & Frías, M. D. (2002). Procesos cognitivos y emocionales predictores de la conducta prosocial y agresiva: La empatía como factor modulador. Psicothema, 14(2), 227-232.
Muraki, E., & Carlson, J. E. (1995). Full-Information Factor Analysis for Polytomous Item Responses. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19(1), 73-90. doi: 10.1177/014662169501900109
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2000). Likelihood-Based Item Fit Indices for Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 24(1), 50-64. doi: 10.1177/ 01466216000241003
Orlando, M., & Thissen, D. (2003). Further Investigation of the Performance of S-÷2: An Item Fit Index for Use With Dichotomous Item Response Theory Models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 27(4), 289- 298. doi: 10.1177/0146621603027004004
Ouyang, X., Xin, T., & Chen, F. (2016). Construct Validity of the Children’s Coping Strategies Scale (CCSS) A Bifactor Model Approach. Psychological Reports, 118(1), 199-218. doi: 10.1177/0033294116628362
Penner, L., Fritzsche, B., Craiger, J., & Freifeld, T. (1995). Measuring the prosocial personality. In J. Butcher, & C. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in Personality Assessment (Vol. 10). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Reise, S. P., Moore, T. M., & Haviland, M. G. (2010). Bifactor Models and Rotations: Exploring the Extent to Which Multidimensional Data Yield Univocal Scale Scores. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(6), 544-559. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2010.496477
Roche, R. (1998). El uso educativo de la televisión como optimizadora de la prosocialidad. Psychosocial Intervention, 7(3), 363-377.
Samejima, F. (1968). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika monograph supplement, 17(4), 2. doi: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x
Strakatý, S. (2016). Relationship between Traumatic Experience and Prosocial Behavior (Tesis de bachillerato). State University of New York, Empire State College.
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, NY: Routledge.
Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., & Edelen, M. O. (2013). Using Logistic Approximations of Marginal Trace Lines to Develop Short Assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(1), 41-57. doi: 10.1177/ 0146621612462759
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2001). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights, MA: Ally and Bacon.
Toland, M. D., Sulis, I., Giambona, F., Porcu, M., & Campbell, J. M. (2017). Introduction to bifactor polytomous item response theory analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 60, 41-63. doi: 10.1016/ j.jsp.2016.11.001
Warneken, F., & Tomasello, M. (2009). The roots of human altruism. British Journal of Psychology, 100(3), 455-471. doi: 10.1348/000712608X379061
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright: In the event that the manuscript is approved for future publication, the authors retain the copyright and assign to the journal the rights to publish, edit, reproduce, distribute, exhibit, and communicate nationally and internationally in the various databases, repositories and portals.
Self-archiving policy: The author can share, disseminate, and publicize his research published by the media (e.g., academic social networks, repositories, and portals) available on the web. During the editorial review process, the journal will provide the author with the previous versions (post-print) which should NOT be disclosed by any media, only for personal use and for final approval. Liberabit will send the author the final version of the article (published version) in PDF and HTML to be shared, disseminated and disclosed by the media available on the web. After the publication of the articles, the authors can make other independent or additional agreements for the non-exclusive dissemination of the version of the article published in this journal (publication in books or institutional repositories), provided that it is indicated with the respective reference that the work has been published for the first time in this journal.