The original version of the instrument has 5 dimensions, however, when validating it in my language, the optimal factor solution was 2 factors.
I conducted a study using this last validated version but I have doubts if my results can be compared with the current literature since almost most of the other validations (and of the available evidence) consists of 5 dimensions how should I make the discussion of my results?
It sounds as if it would not be best to compare your results with that of the tool in a different language. It sounds like there may be some interpretation and or cultural complications going on in your sotuation.
I recommend to search more empiric researchs to validate the dimensions that operationalize the construct.
I have seen in few cases, number of dimension may be reduced depending on context and/ or culture. For example, in online marketing, I have seen some authors used 3 dimensions to related to an instrument. However, other used 2 dimensions.
I feel you can check more journal articles in your area to validate your findings in your cultures.
I think it would be interesting to collect data from a different sample of your same population and test both the 2 and the 5-factor models with CFA. If your two-factor solution provides significantly better fit, this would give support to such internal structure in your population. If, on the other hand, both models have adequate fit, maybe you could choose the 5-factor model, in order to facilitate cross-cultural comparison.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Psychology
- Psychometrics