Psychometric evaluation and wording effects on the Chinese version of the parent-proxy Kid-KINDL

Table 4 Correlations between QoL factors in models^a (n = 247)

Subscales	Physical	Emotional	Self-esteem	Family	Friends
Model 1 (QoL model)/Model 4 (CTCM) ^b
Emotional	.55/.48
Self-esteem	.10/.25	.41/.47
Family	.24/.29	.51/.49	.69/.61
Friends	.04/.12	.40/.42	.68/.35	.57/.38
School	.14/.16	.38/.32	.62/.40	.51/.33	.57/.33
Model 5 (CTC [M − 1])/Model 6 (CTUM)
Emotional	.31/.48
Self-esteem	.20/.25	.67/.50
Family	.27/.30	.64/.51	.69/.63
Friends	.13/.13	.63/.44	.68/.38	.57/.40
School	.18/.17	.51/.35	.63/.44	.51/.37	.57/.36

Model 1 is a 6-QoL-factor (physical, emotional, self-esteem, family, friend, and school) model
Model 4 is a correlated traits (QoL factors) and correlated methods (wording factors) model (CTCM model)
Model 5 is a correlated traits and one-wording-factor model (CTC [M − 1] model)
Model 6 is a correlated traits and uncorrelated methods model (CTUM model)
^aItem Fr4 (felt different from other children) was eliminated in all CFA models based on the suggestion of previous studies (Helseth & Lund [21]; Lin et al. [10]; Lee et al. [22]; Wee et al. [23])
^bThe correlation coefficient between the two methods (positive wording vs. negative wording) was.05

ISSN: 1477-7525