Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article
Original Article

Further Insights Into the German Version of the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA)

Exploratory and Bayesian Structural Equation Modeling Approaches

Published Online:May 04, 2017https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000404

Abstract

Abstract. Interoception is defined as an iterative process that refers to receiving, accessing, appraising, and responding to body sensations. Recently, following an extensive process of development, Mehling and colleagues (2012) proposed a new instrument, the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA), which captures these different aspects of interoception with eight subscales. The aim of this study was to reexamine the dimensionality of the MAIA by applying maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis (ML-CFA), exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), and Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM). ML-CFA, ESEM, and BSEM were examined in a sample of 320 German adults. ML-CFA showed a poor fit to the data. ESEM yielded a better fit and contained numerous significant cross-loadings, of which one was substantial (≥ .30). The BSEM model with approximate zero informative priors yielded an excellent fit and confirmed the substantial cross-loading found in ESEM. The study demonstrates that ESEM and BSEM are flexible techniques that can be used to improve our understanding of multidimensional constructs. In addition, BSEM can be seen as less exploratory than ESEM and it might also be used to overcome potential limitations of ESEM with regard to more complex models relative to the sample size.

References

  • Asparouhov, T., Muthén, B., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Bayesian structural equation modeling with cross-loadings and residual covariances: Comments on Stromeyer et al. Journal of Management, 41, 1561–1577. doi: 10.1177/0149206315591075 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bornemann, B., Herbert, B., Mehling, W., & Singer, T. (2015). Differential changes in self-reported aspects of interoceptive awareness through 3 months of contemplative training. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1504. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01504 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150. doi: 10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Craig, A. D. (2002). How do you feel? Interoception: The sense of the physiological condition of the body. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 3, 655–666. doi: 10.1038/nrn894 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Depaoli, S., & van de Schoot, R. (2015). Improving transparency and replication in Bayesian statistics: The WAMBS-checklist. Psychological Methods, Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/met0000065 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dunn, T., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega: A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consistency estimation. British Journal of Psychology, 105, 399–412. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12046 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Farb, N., Daubenmier, J., Price, C., Gard, T., Kerr, C., Dunn, B., … Mehling, W. (2015). Interoception, contemplative practice, and health. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 763. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00763 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fong, T. C., & Ho, R. T. (2013). Factor analyses of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach. Quality of Life Research, 22, 2857–2863. doi: 10.1007/s11136-013 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Fong, T. C., & Ho, R. T. (2015). Dimensionality of the 9-item Utrecht Work Engagement Scale revisited: A Bayesian structural equation modeling approach. Journal of Occupational Health, 57, 353–358. doi: 10.1539/joh First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Füstös, J., Gramann, K., Herbert, B., & Pollatos, O. (2013). On the embodiment of emotion regulation: Interoceptive awareness facilitates reappraisal. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 8, 911–917. doi: 10.1093/scan/nss089 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Golay, P., Reverte, I., Rossier, J., Favez, N., & Lecerf, T. (2013). Further insights on the French WISC-IV factor structure through Bayesian structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 25, 496–508. doi: 10.1037/a0030676 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Gucciardi, D., & Zyphur, M. (2016). Exploratory structural equation modelling and Bayesian estimation. In N. NtoumanisN. D. MyersEds., An introduction to intermediate and advanced statistical analyses for sport and exercise scientists (pp. 172–194). London, UK: Wiley. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations. Psychometrika, 36, 409–426. doi: 10.1007/BF02291366 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Koch, A., & Pollatos, O. (2014). Interoceptive sensitivity, body weight and eating behavior in children: A prospective study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1003. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01003 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • MacCallum, R., Roznowski, M., & Necowitz, L. (1992). Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: The problem of capitalization on chance. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 490–504. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.111.3.490 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320–341. doi: 10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. doi: 10.1037/a0019227 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H., Morin, A., Parker, P., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Marsh, H., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476. doi: 10.1080/10705510903008220 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mehling, W., Gopisetty, V., Daubenmier, J., Price, C., Hecht, F., & Stewart, A. (2009). Body awareness: Construct and self-report measures. PLoS One, 4, e5614. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0005614 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Mehling, W., Price, C., Daubenmier, J., Acree, M., Bartmess, E., & Stewart, A. (2012). The multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA). PLoS One, 7, e48230. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048230 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2015). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling, , 1–24. doi: 10.1080/10705511.2014.961800 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313–335. doi: 10.1037/a0026802 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Raykov, T. (2004). Point and interval estimation of reliability for multiple-component measuring instruments via linear constraint covariance structure modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 342–356. doi: 0.1207/s15328007sem1103_3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rindskopf, D. (2012). Next steps in Bayesian structural equation models: Comments on, variations of, and extensions to Muthén and Asparouhov (2012). Psychological Methods, 17, 336–339. doi: 10.1037/a0027130 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003). Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 8, 23–74. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00993 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schulz, A., & Vögele, C. (2015). Interoception and stress. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 993. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00993 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Valenzuela-Moguillansky, C., & Reyes-Reyes, A. (2015). Psychometric properties of the multidimensional assessment of interoceptive awareness (MAIA) in a Chilean population. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 120. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00120 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van de Schoot, R., Kaplan, D., Denissen, J., Asendorpf, J., Neyer, F., & van Aken, M. (2014). A gentle introduction to Bayesian analysis: Applications to developmental research. Child Development, 85, 842–860. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12169 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van de Schoot, R., Kluytmans, A., Tummers, L., Lugtig, P., Hox, J., & Muthén, B. (2013). Facing off with Scylla and Charybdis: a comparison of scalar partial and the novel possibility of approximate measurement invariance. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 1–15. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00770 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Wagenmakers, E.-J., Wetzels, R., Borsboom, D., & Van Der Maas, H. L. (2011). Why psychologists must change the way they analyze their data: The case of psi: Comment on Bem (2011). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 425–432. doi: 10.1037/a0022790 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zyphur, M. J., & Oswald, F. L. (2015). Bayesian estimation and inference: A user’s guide. Journal of Management, 41, 390–420. doi: 10.1177/0149206313501200 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar