Measuring political participation across diverse contexts presents significant methodological challenges. This article delves into the complexities of quantifying political engagement, focusing on the application of bi-factor modeling and associated indices to assess dimensionality and reliability in comparative research. We will explore different approaches to establishing dimensionality, including model fit comparisons and Principal Component Analysis (PCA), before focusing on the advantages of the bi-factor model.
Traditional Approaches to Dimensionality
Before examining the bi-factor model, it’s crucial to understand the insights gained from traditional methods like model fit comparison and PCA using the Kaiser-1 rule. Model fit comparison involves estimating unidimensional (all items loading on one factor) and bidimensional (items grouped into institutionalized and non-institutionalized modes) factor models.
Comparing global fit indices (CFI, TLI, SRMR, RMSEA) often reveals the bidimensional model as superior, suggesting two distinct dimensions of political participation. Similarly, applying the Kaiser-1 rule in PCA frequently leads to extracting two dimensions. However, these methods have limitations, prompting the exploration of more nuanced approaches.
The Bi-factor Model: A Deeper Dive
The bi-factor model offers a significant advantage by partitioning variance between a general factor and group factors. The general factor captures the commonality among all participation items, while group factors represent unique variance explained by specific modes of participation after accounting for the general factor. This allows researchers to determine the extent to which additional dimensions contribute beyond the common variance.
In a bi-factor model of political participation, the general factor represents the overall construct of political engagement. Group factors, such as “institutionalized” (e.g., contacting politicians, working for parties) and “non-institutionalized” (e.g., protesting, online activism) modes, capture specific forms of participation. This model allows for a more nuanced understanding of the underlying structure of political engagement. The model is estimated using full-information item factor analysis with a dimensional reduction EM algorithm. Factors are standardized with unit variance and zero means.
Evaluating the Model: Indices and Interpretation
To determine the number of dimensions and the reliability of the bi-factor model, several indices are crucial:
-
Explained Common Variance (ECV): Quantifies the common variance explained by each factor. High ECV for the general factor (above 0.7) suggests essential unidimensionality.
-
Index H: Assesses factor reliability and replicability. Values above 0.8 indicate a well-defined and stable factor. A low H value cautions against relying on the factor in subsequent analyses.
-
Omega Coefficient (ω): Measures the proportion of reliable variance in unit-weighted composite scores attributable to all modeled sources of common variance. Different versions of omega, including omega hierarchical (ωH) and omega subscale (ωS), allow for quantifying the reliable variance uniquely attributed to the general factor or specific group factors. The ratio of ωH to ω indicates the percentage of reliable variance due to the general factor. The ratio of ωS to ω provides insights into the potential confounding influence of the general trait on subscale interpretations.
Conclusion
The bi-factor model, coupled with appropriate indices like ECV, H, and ω, provides a robust framework for measuring political participation in comparative research. By partitioning variance and assessing factor reliability, researchers can make informed decisions about dimensionality and scoring strategies, ultimately leading to a more nuanced and accurate understanding of political engagement across diverse contexts. This approach facilitates the development of more reliable and valid measures of political participation, crucial for comparative political analysis.
