Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Short Dispositional Flow Scale–2 and Short Flow State Scale–2 for Persons With Schizophrenia in Taiwan

PURPOSE: This study aimed to apply confirmatory factor analysis to validate the Chinese versions of the Short Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (DFS–2) and Short Flow State Scale–2 (FSS–2) for persons with schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: In occupational therapy clinical practice, the “just-right” challenge has been encouraged to help people obtain flow experience. According to flow theory, flow experience occurs while the individual perceives a challenge that matches his or her ability in activities. Within the flow state, individuals have clear goals and a full sense of control over their actions and thus produce positive emotions. The DFS–2 and FSS–2 are instruments developed for evaluating individuals’ dispositional flow tendency and flow status while participating in activities. The DFS–2 and FSS–2 have similar structures but differ in the tense of item sentences; DFS–2 items use the present tense, and FSS–2 items use the past tense. Both the DFS–2 and the FSS–2 contain 36 items, including four items for each of the nine dimensions of flow: Challenge–Skill Balance, Action–Awareness Merging, Clear Goals, Unambiguous Feedback, Concentration on the Task at Hand, Sense of Control, Loss of Self-Consciousness, Transformation of Time, and Autotelic Experience.

Short versions of the DFS–2 and FSS–2 have been developed for practical considerations containing nine items for each scale derived and summarized from the 36-item scales. Given that these scales were developed on the general population, little is known about the possibility of applying the Short DFS–2 and Short FSS–2 in persons with schizophrenia, who may have attention deficits and motivation problems when participating in activities.

DESIGN AND METHOD: This study used a cross-sectional design. Participants were 229 adults diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder and from psychiatric outpatient clinics, day hospitals, and vocational rehabilitation programs in Taipei, Taiwan. Research instruments included the Chinese translated versions of the DFS–2, FSS–2, General Causality Orientations Scale, Activity Participation and Restriction Questionnaire, Satisfaction With Life Scale, and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale. LISREL 9.2 software was used to analyze data.

We followed the Flow Manual (Jackson, Eklund, & Martin, 2010) and picked up the nine items from the 36-item DFS–2 and FSS–2 for the short versions. We took the one-factor models for the DFS–2 and FSS–2 as the initial factor models for confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the same sample covariance matrix to verify and refine the measurement structures. To assure the quality of analysis results, basic model-fitting techniques were applied in CFA. First, with the aid of substantive knowledge and insight, stepwise variable selection was performed by iterating the following two actions: (1) using Wald’s t test to drop an insignificant structural parameter and (2) using a modification index (MI) to add an additional meaningful structural parameter. Next, in addition to chi-square goodness-of-fit test, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and comparative fit index (CFI) were particularly examined for assessing the adequacy of fit.

RESULTS: The results showed that the Short DFS–2 existed as one factor for first order, χ²(25) = 35.12, p = .086, RMSEA = .042, CFI = .989, and that the Short FSS–2 also existed as one factor for first order, χ²(22) = 24.61, p = .316, RMSEA = .023, CFI = .997.

CONCLUSION: Following the usual cutoff values for well-fitted factor models in CFA, RMSEA <.06 and CFI >.95 (Muthén & Muthén, 1998, p. 362), the Chinese versions of the Short DFS–2 and Short FSS–2 showed goodness of fit when administered to persons with schizophrenia in Taiwan.

IMPACT STATEMENT: This study suggests that the Chinese versions of the Short DFS–2 and Short FSS–2 may serve as useful tools in research and mental health practice. The results of this study provide evidence to establish the foundation for further inquiry into occupational therapy intervention outcomes and cross-cultural differences.

References

Jackson, S. A., Eklund, R. C., & Martin, A. J. (2010). The flow manual. Menlo Park, CA: Mind Garden.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998). Mplus user’s guide (2nd printing, 2001). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.