比較多個時間點的因素結構的理由（文獻回顧）

以下為回顧前人進行多個時間點的因素結構比較的原因。
紫字標示者為我認為可用於我的論文的原因。

原因	比較方法	出處
之前的研究曾建議刪題，有些卻不用。或建議刪除的題目不同	Multiple group confirmatory factor (MGCF) model framework	[1]
欲測量的特質會受到特定因素影響（例如：生病後的時間長度、是否回到工作、社經地位）	Multiple group confirmatory factor (MGCF) model Framework、計算量表分數與其它特質的相關程度 (multi-trait- multi-method matrix ,MTMM)	[1, 2]
題目間的關係可能因為時間點不同而改變，導致因素結構改變	1.      直接比較分析結果、各題在不同時期的難度、平均分數與標準差 2.      Coefficient of congruence and Catttell’s Salient Similarity Index (Cattell, 1978)，用於CFA	[3, 4]
題目難度的排序可能因為評估時間點而不同	直接比較分析結果、各題在不同時期的難度、平均分數與標準差	[3, 5]
因素間的關係尚不確定	計算量表分數與其它特質的相關程度 (multi-trait- multi-method matrix ,MTMM)	[6, 7]
驗證現有的理論架構	1.      SEM （用於CFA的結果） 2.      Multi-group CFAs in a repeated-measures design	[8, 9]
欲驗證量表的測量不變性 (longitudinal invariance of the factor Structure/ measurement invariance) -因為個案在某些時間點可能無法/不適合回答某些問題 -因素結構若因時間而不同，不利於長期追蹤的結果比較	Multi-group CFAs in a repeated-measures design	[7, 9, 10]

1.         Chungkham, H.S., et al., Factor Structure and Longitudinal Measurement Invariance of the Demand Control Support Model: An Evidence from the Swedish Longitudinal Occupational Survey of Health (SLOSH). PloS one, 2013. 8(8): p. e70541.

2.         Hagen, S., C. Bugge, and H. Alexander, Psychometric properties of the SF-36 in the early post-stroke phase. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 2003. 44(5): p. 461-468.

3.         Saiepour, N., et al., Item ordering of personal disturbance scale (DSSI/sAD) in a longitudinal study; using Mokken scale analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 2014. 58: p. 37-42.

4.         Fairbrother, N., et al., Psychometric evaluation of the multidimensional assessment of fatigue scale for use with pregnant and postpartum women. Psychological Assessment, 2008. 20(2): p. 150-158.

5.         Fieo, R.A., et al., Improving a Measure of Mobility-Related Fatigue (The Mobility-Tiredness Scale) by Establishing Item Intensity. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2013. 61(3): p. 429-433.

6.         Biesanz, J.C. and S.G. West, Towards Understanding Assessments of the Big Five: Multitrait‐Multimethod Analyses of Convergent and Discriminant Validity Across Measurement Occasion and Type of Observer. Journal of Personality, 2004. 72(4): p. 845-876.

7.         Makikangas, A., et al., The factor structure and factorial invariance of the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) across time: Evidence from two community-based samples. Psychological Assessment, 2006. 18(4): p. 444-451.

8.         Brouwer, S., et al., Return-to-Work Self-Efficacy: Development and Validation of a Scale in Claimants with Musculoskeletal Disorders. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 2011. 21(2): p. 244-258.

9.         Chang, C.C., et al., Psychometric Evaluation of the Internalized Stigma of Mental Illness Scale for Patients with Mental Illnesses: Measurement Invariance across Time. Plos One, 2014. 9(6): p. 8.

10.       Makikangas, A., et al., Longitudinal Factorial Invariance of the Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey among Employees with Job-related Psychological Health Problems. Stress and Health, 2011. 27(4): p. 347-352.