Are the measurement structures of the Traditional Chinese Dispositional Flow Scale-2 equivalent between schizophrenic patients and healthy subjects?

BACKGROUND: The Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) is an instrument for measuring the flow experiences of the general population while participating in daily activities. This study aimed to examine the equivalence in the measurement structure of Traditional Chinese DFS-2 (TCDFS-2) between the schizophrenic patients and healthy subjects. METHODS: We recruited 100 adults with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder from the psychiatric clinics or the centers for daycare or rehabilitation and 104 healthy adults. Each participant finished the TCDFS-2 by recalling the most important and meaningful daily activity. RESULTS: We conducted two two-group confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) with the healthy subjects and schizophrenic patients as the reference group respectively in LISREL. When the healthy subjects as the reference standard, 43 items of the TCDFS-2 were added to this constrained two-group CFA model for the schizophrenic patients, but the cross-group equivalence was still unsatisfactory. By contrast, when the schizophrenic patients as the reference standard, only 6 items were added for the healthy subjects, and the cross-group equivalence was barely acceptable. CONCLUSION: Thus, the measurement structures of the TCDFS-2 were quite different between the schizophrenic patients and healthy subjects. The flow states experienced by the schizophrenic patients might not entirely be the same as those of the healthy subjects.

Traditional-Chinese Dispositional Flow Scale-2 and Flow State Scale-2 in Taiwanese subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder.

INTRODUCTION: The 36-item Dispositional Flow Scale-2 (DFS-2) and Flow State Scale-2 (FSS-2) were developed to assess flow experience in daily and specific activities. Although their validity and reliability had been examined in general populations and different cultures, little is known for schizophrenic subjects. Thus, this study aimed to validate Traditional-Chinese DFS-2 (TCDFS-2) and FSS-2 (TCFSS-2) in Taiwanese subjects with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. METHODS: We recruited 229 adult participants from outpatient clinics, day care centers, and psychiatric rehabilitation centers in Taipei. They filled out 36-item TCDFS-2 and TCFSS-2 under guidance. The LISREL 9.30 software was used to conduct exploratory factor analysis for exploring measurement structures, and then confirmatory factor analysis for identifying factor models. RESULTS: The six first-order factor and one second-order factor measurement models were obtained for both 36-item TCDFS-2 (Chi-square statistic = 999.1, df = 545, p < 0.0001, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] = 0.0603, and Comparative Fit Index [CFI] = 0.9213) and TCFSS-2 (Chi-square statistic = 987.9, df = 539, p < 0.0001, RMSEA = 0.0603, and CFI = 0.9213). CONCLUSION: Our factor models differed remarkably from those of 36-item DFS-2 and FSS-2. Yet, they were barely acceptable to be used to measure flow experiences in schizophrenic subjects in clinical applications. Since the factor scores, measurement structures, or even definitions of flow experiences could differ substantially between healthy people and patients with mental illness, disease-specific instruments of flow experiences should be considered in the future.