Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis using a professional role orientation inventory as an example.

Background and Purpose. The purpose of this article is to illustrate how confirmatory factor analysis can be used to extend and clarify a researcher's insight into a survey instrument beyond that afforded through the typical exploratory factor analytic approach. The authors use as an example a survey instrument developed to measure individual differences in professional role orientation among physical therapists, the Professional Role Orientation Inventory for Physical Therapists (PROI-PT). Sample. Five hundred three physical therapists responded to a mail survey instrument that was sent to a random sample of 2,000 American Physical Therapy Association members. Methods. An adapted version of the Professional Role Orientation Inventory, a 40-item Likert-scale instrument developed to assess professional role orientation on 4 dimensions (authority, responsibility, agency, and autonomy), was used. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to examine the factorial validity of the PROI-PT. Results. Exploratory factor analysis served as a starting point for examining the factor structure of the instrument. Confirmatory factor analysis then was used to test the hypothesized factor structure and to suggest refinements to the PROI-PT that would improve a psychometric property (internal consistency). Discussion and Conclusion. Although further refinement of the PROI-PT is needed, an instrument that yields valid and reliable measurements of individual differences in professionalism among physical therapists could further our understanding of the psychosocial aspects of physical therapist practice. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses can be used by researchers who study various psychosocial constructs in physical therapy.

[Swisher LL, Beckstead JW, Bebeau MJ. Factor analysis as a tool for survey analysis using a professional role orientation inventory as an example. Phys Ther. 2004;84:784 -799.]

Key Words: Factor analysis, Physical therapist relationship with patients, Physical therapy profession, Professional autonomy, Professional ethics, Professional issues, Professional role, Professional-patient relations, Social responsibility. Laura L Swisher, Jason W Beckstead, Muriel J Bebeau

**********

Over the last several decades, members of the physical therapy profession have intensified their efforts to enhance the profession's body of knowledge through research. (1-4) Many of these research efforts have focused on examination of the effectiveness of clinical interventions. A number of psychosocial constructs that we believe are essential to the practice of physical therapy have not been subjected to similar research. For example, "professionalism," (1,5-7) "autonomous practice," (7-9) and "accountability" (10) have occupied a central place in professional discussion but have generated relatively little research. As physical therapists continue to work toward practice without referral and increased levels of professionalism, we contend that it will be important to subject professional practice concepts to the same rigorous scholarship that is being focused on clinical issues. Scholarship of this type, in our view, requires the development of appropriate measurement tools through the use of social scientific methods. The purpose of this article is to illustrate exploratory and confirmatory factorial analyses as tools to analyze data collected by instruments that measure psychosocial constructs. We use the Professional Role Orientation Inventory for Physical Therapists (PROI-PT) as an example of an instrument designed to measure professionalism among physical therapists.

Background-Professionalism

The terms "profession," "professional," and "professionalism" feature prominently in physical therapists' discussions. Speaking in 1965, Worthingham (11) referred to physical therapy as an "emerging profession." By 2001, Massey could say, "As a profession, we have arrived. We have defined our scope of practice. We have developed a unique body of knowledge. We are documenting the effectiveness of our outcomes. We adhere to a code of ethics. And we take responsibility for the well-being of patients and clients. True autonomy is the destination." (12(p1831))

Despite the frequent use of the terms "profession" and "professionalism," their meaning may not be entirely clear. (13,14) Larson (15) attributed this ambiguity to the fact that social scientists have basically used the term "profession" in a casual fashion. He observed, "Given that this is not a concept but rather a notion taken from social practice which connotes more than it denotes, it is not surprising to find the term used in contradictory or inconsistent ways." (15(p607))

The ambiguity of the term "professional" is further complicated by the sheer volume and diversity of related literature spanning several centuries and by the changing focus of scholarship about the professions. Although early research focused on the common characteristics or attributes that define the professions, (16,17) more recent work has examined the sociopolitical process of "professionalization." (18-21) The comments of Massey would seem to emphasize the attributes of the profession, whereas Worthingham's observations about "steps" of the emerging profession address the process of professionalization.

In this article, professionalism is defined as the conceptualization of obligations, attributes, interactions, attitudes, and role behaviors required of professionals in relationship to individual patients or clients and to society as a whole. This definition embraces the idea that professionalism reflects an implied contract among the profession, the individual professional, and society. (22,23) The implicit social contract of professionalism serves both normative and descriptive functions by describing and prescribing roles, relationships, obligations, and behaviors.

Although much of the sociological literature focuses on the characteristics common to all professions, Bellner (24) noted that there are differences between professions and individual professionals regarding the concepts of professionalism. Concepts of professionalism, therefore, may refer to the profession as a whole or to individual members of a profession. (13,14) Individual professionalism, or professional role concept, refers to the internalized beliefs of an individual professional regarding professional obligations, attributes, interactions, attitudes, and role behaviors.

The multiple levels and meanings attached to the term "professionalism" make it especially difficult to measure professionalism. Instruments used to measure professionalism have been based on the early sociological concept of professionalism, with particular emphasis on autonomy as the defining mark of a professional. For example, Hall (25,26) developed a widely used 50-item Likert-scale instrument to assess 5 "attitudinal attributes" of professionals: use of professional organization as reference, belief in public service, belief in self-regulation, sense of calling, and perceived autonomy in work.

One line of scholarship on physical therapy professionalism also has emphasized attributes and autonomy. Some studies of physical therapy (27,28) were based on the ideas of Moore (29) and Pavalko (30) that professionalism should be evaluated as a continuum of attributes. Moore's continuum ranked professional attributes in ascending order of importance: motivation, established professional organization, specialized body of knowledge, evaluative skills, and autonomy of judgment. (29(p5))

Another line of research focused on the professional behaviors of physical therapists. Lopopolo (31,32) developed a 26-item instrument to evaluate changes in role behaviors following hospital restructuring. May and associates (33) developed the Generic Abilities Assessment to self-assess professional behaviors necessary for practice, with professionalism and responsibility as 2 of the 10 generic abilities. Jette and Portney's (34) subsequent research to determine the construct validity of data obtained with this instrument generated 7 factors. The American Physical Therapy Association's (APTA) Department of Education has recently delineated the 7 core values of professionalism based on consensus and a review of research in the field of medicine: accountability, altruism, compassion/caring, excellence, integrity, professional duty, and social responsibility. (6)

There was a sociological or behavioral emphasis in many instruments used to evaluate professionalism. Bebeau et al, (35) however, developed an instrument based on philosophers' or ethicists' descriptions of models of professionalism (36-39) that appeared to guide professional relationships and decision making. Working with dentists, they created the Professional Role Orientation Inventory (PROI), a 40-item Likert-scale instrument, to measure 4 dimensions of professionalism: authority, responsibility, autonomy, and agency. These constructs are defined in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Theoretical dimensions of professionalism in the
Professional Role Orientation Inventory (PROI)35
and the Professional Role Orientation Inventory for
Physical Therapists (PROI-PT).

Authority

"[D]egree to which a person sees the self as knowledgeable, a good
judge of outcomes, respected, and deferred to for expertise." (35(p27))

Responsibility

"[B]readth of an individual's commitment to others." (35(p28))

Agency

"[E]xtent to which an individual feels a sense of control and power in
his/her life as a practicing, professional." (35(p29))

Autonomy

"[E]xtent to which an individual feels freedom and independence in
his/her role." (35(p29))

Exploratory factor analysis of their results confirmed the existence of the 4 anticipated subscales, plus a fifth factor that appeared to be a combination of agency, autonomy, and authority. The PROI was sensitive to individual differences on each of the dimensions, detected change over time (first- to fourth-year students), and showed differences between groups of dentistry professionals who would be expected to differ in professional role concepts. (30,40,41)

We used an adaptation of the PROI for use with physical therapists--the PROI-PT (Appendix). This instrument was selected because it is supposed to examine professionalism as a relational concept and because of its ability to provide information about the professional's concept of the "implied contract" with patients and clients and with society. In contrast to many of the existing instruments for evaluating professionalism, the PROI is not based exclusively on autonomy or the professional image or status of the physical therapist or on the stage of professionalization of the profession as a whole.

Background-Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses

Development of a survey instrument such as the PROI-PT is commonly done in social science to examine multidimensional constructs. (42,43) The researcher generates a series of questions, each of which is supposed to address a dimension of the construct under investigation. As in the PROI, each item of the PROI-PT is intended to address 1 of 4 dimensions of professionalism: responsibility, agency, authority, or autonomy.

To evaluate an instrument that purports to measure psychosocial concepts, such as professionalism, patterns of variation (variance) and correlation (covariance) among responses to the items representing each dimension of the construct are often examined. (44,45) Factor analysis refers to a group of statistical techniques that are often used to pursue this line of examination. Several methods (eg, principal axis factoring, principal components analysis, image factor extraction, alpha factoring) are known collectively as exploratory factor analysis (EFA). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is another class of methods for examining the results of these types of instruments. The following section briefly discusses these 2 approaches commonly used in the evaluation of multiple-item instruments such as the PROI-PT.

In EFA, the researcher begins with a set of variables in which the analytical focus is to discover relatively independent, coherent subsets of variables. (46(p582)) That is, EFA allows the researcher to examine numerous variables and, under certain conditions, "to reduce them to a smaller, more manageable set of underlying concepts." (43(p607)) The question addressed by researchers using EFA is: What are the underlying or latent constructs that could have produced the observed pattern of variances and covariances among the variables? The relationships among the latent constructs and the observed variables (test items) are modeled using a set of equations that contain factor loading coefficients, which are analogous to standardized regression coefficients. Typically, there is no underlying theory in EFA about which variables should be quantitatively associated with which factors; they are simply empirically associated. The ideal or expected outcome in EFA is that the pattern of factor loadings show "simple structure," that is, that each item loads strongly on (that is, it correlates with or regresses on) only one factor and has near-zero loadings on all other factors. Exploratory factor analysis methods rely on various rules of thumb, with factor loading cutoff criteria ranging from .30 to .55, for establishing what is considered to be a strong factor loading coefficient.

A focal step in EFA often involves deducing names for the factors based on the content (ie, wording) of the items that load heavily upon them. (43(p613)) Two popular EFA techniques are principal components analysis, where the goal is to account for variance in the set of items, and principal axis factoring, where the goal is to reproduce the matrix of correlations between all pairs of items. Unfortunately, these 2 approaches are often simply referred to as "factor analysis," which leads to confusion when applying and interpreting them. Both forms of EFA are considered data reduction strategies, but they are used with different goals and criteria for success in mind. The success of a principal components analysis is expressed in terms of the amount of variance in a large set of test items that may be explained by modeling them using equations based on a few latent components. The greater the proportion of variance explained, the better the principal components solution is said to be.46 Principal axis factoring methods quantify their success in terms of the amount of discrepancy between the matrix of observed correlations and those reproduced from the factor equations. The smaller these discrepancies, the better the factor solution is said to be. (46)

In contrast to EFA, the aim of which is simply to identify the factor structure present in a set of variables, the aim of CFA is to test a hypothesized factor structure or model and to assess its fit to the data. (44,45) Confirmatory factor analysis may be viewed as a submodel of the more general structural equation modeling (SEM) approach to analysis. Specifically, CFA is a measurement model of the relationships of indicators (observed variables) to factors (latent variables) as well as the correlations among the latter. Confirmatory factor analysis is generally based on a strong theoretical or observational foundation that allows the analyst to specify an exact factor structure in advance. The CFA approach usually restricts which variables will load on which factors, as well as which factors will be correlated. This approach also provides significance tests on each factor loading coefficient, in contrast to relying on rules of thumb (eg, factor loading cutoff criteria of .30 or .40). With CFA, each observed variable has an error term, or residual, associated with it that expresses the proportion of variance in the variable that is not explained by the factors. These error terms also contain measurement error due to any lack of reliability in data for the observed variables. The typical research question with CFA is: Are the covariances (or correlations) among variables consistent with a hypothesized factor structure? As such, CFA is quite useful for studying the factorial validity of data obtained with multiple-item, multiple-subscale instruments such as the PROI-PT.

An articulate comparison of EFA with CFA methods used in our study has been provided by Joreskog and Sorbom:

   It is important to distinguish between exploratory and
   confirmatory analysis. In an exploratory analysis, one wants
   to explore the empirical data to discover and detect
   characteristic features and interesting relationships without
   imposing any definite model on the data. An exploratory
   analysis may be structure generating, model generating, or
   hypothesis generating. In confirmatory analysis, on the
   other hand, one builds a model assumed to describe,
   explain, or account for the empirical data in terms of
   relatively few parameters. The model is based on a priori
   information about the data structure in the form of a
   specified theory or hypothesis, a given classificatory design
   for items or subtests according to objective features of
   content and format, known experimental conditions, or
   knowledge from previous studies based on extensive data.
   Most studies are to some extent both exploratory and
   confirmatory since they involve some variables of known
   and other variables of unknown composition. The former
   should be chosen with great care in order that as much
   information as possible about the latter may be extracted. It
   is highly desirable that a hypothesis that has been suggested
   by mainly exploratory procedures should subsequently be
   confirmed, or disproved, by obtaining new data and subjecting
   these to more rigorous statistical techniques. (47)

Pedhazur and Schmelkin (48(pp631-632)) also contrasted the 2 approaches. With EFA, all variables (items) have loadings (not necessarily meaningful ones) on all of the factors, whereas a major feature of CFA is that the researcher can specify which variables load on which factors. Whether or not factors are correlated is an all-or-nothing decision with EFA. That is, with EFA, it is not possible to specify that only some factors are intercorrelated. In contrast, with CFA, it is possible to specify that only some of the factors are intercorrelated. With EFA, it is assumed that residual, or error, terms within variables are not correlated. With CFA, such correlated errors may be tested as part of the model. The EFA and CFA methods are compared in Table 1.

Method

Sample

A list of 2,000 physical therapist members of APTA who were randomly selected from the membership mailing list of the organization served as the sample for this cross-sectional study. Because we were interested in the concept of professionalism of practicing physical therapists, subjects who were retired from or not practicing in one of the roles of the physical therapist were not included in the study.

Instrumentation

The PROI-PT contains 10 items in each of 4 subscales, with the subscales designed to assess 4 dimensions of professionalism on a Likert scale (1="strongly disagree" to 6="strongly agree"). Adding together Likert scores for the 10 items produces a maximum possible score of 60 for each of the 4 subscales (responsibility, authority, agency, autonomy).

Because professionals share common characteristics, 2 of the authors (LLS in consultation with MJB) changed only those PROI items that were thought to be inconsistent with physical therapist practice. The criteria for changing an item was whether we believed that the item referred to experiences and personnel typically encountered by physical therapists. Item 13 of the PROI ("With respect to hygienists, I believe the public should decide who is given the right to independent access.") was adapted on the PROI-PT to read "With respect to other health care providers (ATCs [certified athletic trainers], massage therapists, OTs [occupational therapists]), I believe the public should decide who is given the right to direct access." Item 31, referring to the burden of mandatory reporting to the National Practitioner Databank, was adapted to read "Medicare documentation and reporting requirements are an unnecessary infringement and a gross burden on my profession." The term "auxiliary utilization" in the original PROI was adapted by using the term "use of support personnel" in the PROI-PT.

Procedure

The PROI-PT was pilot tested by one of the authors (LLS) in a small sample of physical therapists (n=15) in order to determine clarity of the items and directions. A second pilot test was conducted with a small group of physical therapists (n=14) we thought to be experts in professional role evaluation to establish some level of face validity. Criteria for inclusion in the expert group were service, publication, or presentation in a national forum on professional roles or ethics. A list of physical therapist experts was compiled by one of the authors (LLS) based on a search of literature related to professionalism through electronic databases and review of relevant presentations made at the 2 annual meetings of APTA. Addresses were obtained through journals of publication or by a search of the member directory of APTA. As anticipated based on results of studies with the original PROI,35 the experts scored higher on the responsibility subscale than on the other 3 dimensions.

Following these pilot tests, and subsequent revisions to clarify the instructions, we mailed a short information form and the PROI-PT to each person in the sample. A cover letter and demographic questionnaire informed subjects of the voluntary nature of participation, their rights as research participants, and our intention to publish the results of the research. In order to increase the response rate, we mailed prenotification and follow-up postcards to each subject to encourage participation. Although the mail packet also contained an instrument to measure moral reasoning, this article reports only on the professional role portion of the research.

Data Analysis

Initially, the PROI-PT data were subjected to EFA using a maximum likelihood extraction of 4 factors with oblique rotation (which allows factors to be correlated) available in SPSS. * Maximum likelihood extraction estimates population values for factor loadings by calculating loadings that maximize the probability of sampling the observed correlation matrix from a population. (46) This serves as a point of departure for applying the CFA approach.

The factorial validity of data obtained with the PROI-PT was then subjected to CFA using structural equation modeling. The models below were tested with LISREL 8.54. [dagger], (47) Evaluation of each model was based on considering a variety of fit measures, and model comparisons are based on incremental differences in fit. These measures are now briefly discussed. The chi-square minimum fit function test is an inferential test of the plausibility of a model explaining the data. It is calculated from the discrepancies between the original and reproduced correlations among the items. As such, smaller values indicate a better fit of the model to the data. The root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) expresses the lack of fit due to reliability and model specification or misspecification. (49) The RMSEA expresses fit per degree of freedom of the model and should be less than .1 for acceptable fit, with .05 or lower indicating a very good-fitting model. The goodness-of-fit index (GFI) and adjusted goodness-of-fit index (AGFI), which adjust for the number of parameters estimated, range from 0 to 1, with values of .9 or greater indicating a good-fitting model. (47) These 2 indexes are analogous to [R.sup.2] in multiple regression. In structural equation models, such as the comparative fit index (CFI), each item is modeled using a set of parameters (ie, factor loading coefficient[s] and an error or residual variance term representing variance in the item that is not associated with any factors). The CFI assesses fit relative to a null model using noncentrality parameters. (50) The CFI also ranges from 0 to 1, with values of .9 or greater indicative of good-fitting models. The standardized root mean square residual (RMR) is the average of differences between the sample correlations and the estimated population correlations. The RMR has a range from 0 to 1; values of .08 or less are desired. (51)

Results

A total of 503 subjects responded by returning completed, usable survey instruments, a response rate of approximately 25%. This relatively low degree of participation may reflect the length and time-consuming nature of the survey, as well as survey instruments that were undeliverable due to wrong address. Given the complexity of the instrument and relatively long completion time for both instruments in the mailing (about 1 hour), however, this response rate appeared to us to be acceptable because the resulting sample of 503 was greater than the 361 recommended by some standard sample size formulas for a 95% confidence interval and a 5% degree of accuracy in a population of 50,000 to 61,000. (52)

Our sample was composed predominantly of white (96.2%) female (73.8%) subjects, whose professional degree was the baccalaureate degree (54.7%). A total of 52.1% of the sample had a master's degree, and 3.6% had earned a doctoral degree. The average age of respondents was 38.29 years (SD=10.03, range=23-63), with an average of 13.03 years (SD=10.21, range=1-38) of experience in physical therapy. Compared with the APTA membership,53 our sample had more female subjects (73.8% versus 67.2% of APTA members), fewer minority subjects (3.8% versus 9.2% of APTA members), and a greater number of respondents who had earned a master's degree (52.1% versus 45.2% of APTA members). In addition, 7.9% more physical therapists in our sample worked in an outpatient setting (57.6% versus 49.7% of APTA members). (53)

Prior to conducting multivariate analyses, the data were screened for univariate and multivariate outliers. Based on inspections of frequency distributions, no univariate outliers (values more than 3 standard deviations from the mean) (46) were found. A multivariate outlier is a case that has such an extreme pattern of response values across all 40 items that it distorts statistics. Screening for multivariate outliers was done by calculating Mahalanobis distance scores for all cases. Mahalanobis distance is the distance of a case from the centroid of the remaining cases, where the centroid is the point created at the intersection of the means of all 40 PROI-PT items. Using a critical value of [chi square]=73.402, [alpha]=.001, and df=40, 25 multivariate outliers (less than 5% of the total sample) were identified and removed from subsequent factor analyses (final n=478). The demographic profile of these outlying cases was not systematically different from that of the total sample. The means and standard deviations for the 4 subscales are shown in Table 2. Estimates of internal consistency (ie, Cronbach alpha coefficients) for the 4 subscales also are shown in Table 2 and will be discussed.

Results of Exploratory Analysis

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling adequacy was .764, and the Bartlett test of sphericity was significant ([chi square]=3579.78, df=780, P=.001). Both of these measures indicated that the data were appropriate for factor analysis. (48,54) Initial inspection of a scree plot of the eigenvalues evidenced a major departure from linearity coinciding with a 4-factor solution (Fig. 2). This finding, coupled with the expectation that the PROI-PT reflects 4 dimensions of professionalism, prompted us to request and evaluate a 4-factor solution wherein each item was allowed to load onto all 4 factors.

[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]

To assess the quality of the solution, we examined the discrepancies between the 820 unique elements of the 40 x 40 matrix of observed correlation coefficients and their corresponding elements in the matrix of correlation coefficients estimated from the factor loadings. The 4-factor solution resulted in 177 discrepancies (22%) with absolute values greater than .05. The resulting factor loadings are shown in Table 3.

Typical of EFA, the factor loading coefficients were examined for their resemblance to simple structure, the ideal case where each item has a relatively large loading on one factor and near-zero loadings on all other factors. It appears that some items showed this pattern. However, using EFA, it is not possible to determine whether there is "enough" simple structure to support the hypothesized 4-factor structure of the PROI-PT.

An important consideration in EFA is the determination of an appropriate value to determine whether an item has "loaded" on a factor. Loadings of .30 (42(p374),43(p614)) or .40(43(p614)) and above are typically considered the "rule of thumb" threshold for this determination. An examination of Table 3 reveals that selection of the appropriate cutoff point could produce different assessments of the instrument. A value of .30 would produce many more items that load on at least one factor, but more items that cross-load. Using a value of .40 would leave few items that loaded on factors. A factor loading cutoff of .40 would leave only 14 items in the PROI-PT.

In addition to low factor loadings and the criteria for eliminating items, EFA also revealed concerns about the pattern of loadings. Given the goals of "simple structure," it was especially troubling to us that factor 1 contained so many items from both autonomy and agency and that so many of the autonomy and agency items cross-loaded on other factors. These issues and the fact that the 4 factors accounted for only 21.8% of the total variance raised doubts about how well the foundational model of the PROI-PT had performed. To gain greater insight into the factor structure of the PROI-PT, a series of CFA models were tested.

Results of Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed on the covariance matrix of the PROI-PT items. The model parameters were estimated using maximum likelihood. A series of 6 models was tested. The sequence of modeling decisions made, and their resulting summary statistics, are reviewed. The factor loadings for the final model of CFA also are reported for comparison with those of EFA in Table 3. One advantage of CFA is that the researcher can specify the simple structure that he or she is looking for and obtain feedback on the extent to which this structure is supported by the data. That is, LISREL can estimate one factor loading for each item while setting or "fixing" its loadings on all other factors to equal zero. LISREL then provides tests of significance for each loading, as well as the various global indexes of how well the hypothesized factor structure fits the data.

The initial model tested (PROI-PT40A) was one in which each item loaded on only 1 of 4 factors corresponding to its composite subscale. This hypothesized 4-factor model did not fit the data well from either a statistical perspective ([chi square=1707.04, df=734, P=.001) or a practical perspective (GFI=.838, AGFI=.819, CFI=.666, RMSEA=.056, and RMR=.068). This model, therefore, was rejected. These results and those for each of the 6 models tested are summarized in Table 4.

In addition to the summary statistics discussed, LISREL also provides modification indexes (MIs) for each parameter (eg, factor loading) that has been fixed to equal zero. An MI suggests by how much the chi-square test of fit is expected to decrease if a given fixed parameter is freed to be estimated. Thus, MIs can be useful for making decisions about revising hypotheses about factor structure. However, as Pedhazur and Schmelkin (48(pp673-674)) cautioned, researchers should not blindly rely on MI to improve model fit while ignoring the substantive meaning of freeing a parameter. A review of the MIs revealed some abnormally large values representing stress or misfit associated with items 2 and 6. A second model (PROI-PT40B) was tested that explicitly allowed these 2 items to "cross-load" on both the authority and responsibility factors. Model fit statistics are shown in Table 4. A comparative test of this model against the previous more restrictive model, achieved by contrasting the difference in their chi-square values relative to the difference in their degrees of freedom, confirmed that freeing these 2 parameters made an improvement in the fit of the model to the data ([chi square]=86.88, df=2, P=.05). This test is known as the likelihood ratio test and is used in testing nested structural equation models. (55) Nonetheless, inspection of the fit statistics (Tab. 4) indicated that some degree of model misfit still remained.

Our inspection of the factor loading coefficients from the second confirmatory model revealed that 7 items (items 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20) did not load on any of the 4 hypothesized factors. Therefore, a third model (PROI-PT33) that eliminated these items was tested next. Model fit statistics for each of the 6 models tested are shown in Table 4. The likelihood ratio test confirmed that dropping these items improved the fit of the model to the data ([chi square]=552.89, df=245, P=.05). There was still room, however, for improvement. Our inspection of the factor loadings from this model showed that item 7 loaded on all 4 factors. Items with such a pattern of loadings violate the tenet of simple structure in factor-analytic theory and are therefore poor candidates for inclusion in multiple-factor inventories. Consequently, model 4 (PROI-PT32A) that excluded this item was tested next; summary statistics are shown in Table 4. The likelihood ratio test showed that dropping this item improved the fit of the model to the data ([chi square]=90.96, df=31, P=.05).

Extending the application of simple structure to the developing model, we tested whether the dual loadings of items 2 and 6 were necessary by deleting their loadings on their original hypothesized factors. Thus, model 5 (PROI-PT32B) included 32 items, each loading on only one factor, but with item 2 loading on authority and item 6 loading on responsibility. Model fit statistics are shown in Table 4. The likelihood ratio test showed that fixing these original loadings to zero, while allowing these items to load on their "unintended" factors confirmed in model 2, did not detract from the fit of the model to the data ([chi square]=3.71, df=2, P=.05).

Nonetheless, inspection of the fit statistics in Table 4 indicated that some degree of model misfitting still remained. Indeed, a review of the MIs revealed some abnormally large values associated with error covariances among various items. Typically, the error terms for any pair of items are assumed to be uncorrelated. Despite common findings of correlated error variance terms, there remains considerable controversy in the CFA literature regarding their interpretability and cause. Bentler and Chou (56) remarked that model specification that forces all error terms to be uncorrelated is rarely appropriate with real data. Incorporation of these correlated error terms into CFA does not otherwise undermine the factorial validity of data obtained with the PROI-PT, but rather it provides a more realistic factorial representation of the observed data structure.

Based on inspection of MIs associated with the correlated error variances, specific error covariance terms were freed sequentially. That is, one parameter was freed and then the likelihood ratio test was used to assess the significance of improvement in the fit of the model. This process continued until freeing additional parameters did not produce an improvement in model fit. The resulting model (model 6, PROI-PT32C) showed improvement in fit over model 5 (PROI-PT32B). The likelihood ratio test showed that including 9 correlated error variances (between items 9 and 29, 9 and 31, 11 and 16, 21 and 23, 21 and 25, 24 and 25, 24 and 33, 32 and 33, and 38 and 39) improved the fit of the model to the data ([chi square ]=223.93, df=9, P=.05). Fit statistics for this final model are given at the bottom of Table 4. Given the large sample size (n=478), it is not surprising that the chi-square minimum fit function test was significant; however, a good-fitting model may be indicated when the ratio of the chi-square value to the degrees of freedom is less than 2.0.46 In the case of model 6, df x 2=948 and [chi square ]=756.09, thus satisfying this criterion. Based on this, and the other indexes of fit, this model was consistent with the observed data. The factor loadings from model 6 (PROI-PT32C) are shown in Table 5.

Based on the CFAs reported, the authority and responsibility subscales were shortened by dropping items 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, and 20 and exchanging items 2 and 6 on these subscales. The revised authority subscale with 7 items had internal consistency of .50, and the revised responsibility subscale with 5 items had internal consistency of .62. The kappa coefficients calculated on these 2 revised subscales were higher (P=.05) when compared with the coefficients calculated on the original subscales (Tab. 2) using the method proposed by Alsawalmeh and Feldt. (57) Table 6 illustrates the resulting items and internal consistency of subscales for the final models of CFA and EFA.

The correlations among the 4 factors in confirmatory model 6, also calculated by LISREL, are shown in Table 7. The autonomy and agency factors appeared to be quite strongly correlated (r=.98). The responsibility factor was not correlated with either the agency factor or the autonomy factor. The authority and responsibility factors were slightly, although inversely, related.

Discussion

Our analyses focused on evaluating the PROI-PT, an instrument adapted from the PROI, for measuring individual differences in professional role orientation among physical therapists. We set out to show how CFA could be used to assess the factorial validity of data obtained with the PROI-PT by testing the hypothesized relationships among the items that comprise it. In an effort to better illustrate the utility of CFA, we included an analysis of the data using EFA for continuity. Our goal was not to compare the 2 methods of analysis, but to illustrate how CFA can be used to extend and clarify a researcher's insight into a survey instrument beyond that afforded through the EFA approach. We consider these insights useful when considering future use and development of the PROI-PT as well as revision of theory of professionalism that underlies the instrument.

Utility and Interpretation of Factor Analytic Approaches

Our analyses illustrate the different types of information that may be obtained from the CFA and EFA approaches to assessing the factorial validity of data obtained with survey instruments such as the PROI-PT. Beginning with EFA, the scree plot of the eigenvalues (Fig. 2) suggested that the point of diminishing return was 4 factors; adding additional factors to the solution would not improve the ratio of factors to variance accounted for. However, the low proportion of variance in the data (21.8%) that was accounted for by the 4-factor solution raises questions about how well the PROI-PT measures the 4-dimension (authority, responsibility, autonomy, and agency) theoretical model of professionalism. In EFA, the decision to group items together into subscales involves rules of thumb about cutoff values. If the liberal cutoff value of .30 had been applied to exploratory factor loadings in Table 3, only 26 items would be retained, and 4 of these items would be considered as loading on more than one factor. A more conservative cutoff value of .40 would have resulted in retaining only 14 items, with one of them loading on 2 factors (Tab. 6).

Confirmatory factor analysis offered further, and more specific, insight into the factor structure of the PROI-PT by providing tests of significance on each factor loading and modification indexes that suggested where the structural equations that represent the factor structure could be improved. Eliminating items 7, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20 and incorporating item 2 into the authority subscale and item 6 into the responsibility subscale improved the fit of the data to the 4-factor model. These changes also produced increases in internal consistency of these subscales as assessed by Cronbach coefficients.

A number of items did not "behave" as they should have (in either CFA or EFA) based on the 4-dimension theory of professionalism. Several items did not load where they were hypothesized to in CFA. Some items cross-loaded in EFA on the autonomy, agency, and authority factors. In the CFA, there was a strong correlation (.98) between the agency and autonomy factors. These findings raise the question of whether these theoretical dimensions of professionalism are independent and simply measured poorly by the PROI-PT or whether these components could be replaced by a single, broader theoretical component.

Implications for Research on Professionalism

Our results indicate that the psychometric properties of the PROI-PT could be further improved. Future validation studies could address rewording of the problematic items identified and perhaps develop additional (and replacement) items that more adequately reflect the concept of the professional role among physical therapists. We believe our findings are germane to the debate surrounding the appropriate strategy for improving an instrument such as the PROI-PT. Snizek (26) recommended that future users of Hall's professionalism scale should reduce the number of items from 50 to 25. Snizek based this recommendation on an EFA in which many of the items had low factor loadings, some cross-loaded, some failed to load, and some seemed not to "fit." Fox and Vonk, (58) however, were critical of Snizek's "lack of an explicit criterion for 'acceptable' factor loadings," (58(p393)) and voiced concerns about the overall effects of deleting items on the internal consistency and validity of data obtained with the instrument.

With further refinement, the PROI-PT could provide valuable information about how physical therapists view their professional roles. For example, Bebeau (59) used the original instrument with dental students to assess changes in professionalism as students progress through the curriculum. The PROI also has been useful in quantifying the impact of ethics training among dental professionals. (35,59) Similar research could be undertaken with physical therapists to address questions of professionalism and direct access. Do physical therapists who practice with more direct access or in primary care contexts hold different views of autonomy and responsibility? For example, it is possible that physical therapists in military settings who practice with few practice restraints may score higher on the autonomy scale than other physical therapists. Do physical therapists who practice in acute care settings differ in professional role orientation from those who practice in skilled nursing facilities?

Individual differences in professional role orientation, theoretically, also may be linked to professional behaviors and clinical outcomes. Do physical therapists who exhibit desirable professional behaviors or who obtain greater therapeutic outcomes hold different views of professionalism than other, less successful, therapists? Valid and reliable data on individual differences in professionalism could be used to quantify and analyze trends and changes in professionalism, to assess changes in individual therapists over the course of their practice, and to assess effects of educational interventions among physical therapists and physical therapist students.

The theoretical model of professionalism underlying the PROI-PT may have particular relevance in the current health care environment. Although many physical therapists continue to rely on models of professionalism that emphasize autonomy, this approach is regarded by some sociologists as outdated. The current health care environment has markedly decreased the autonomy of health care providers. If a person accepts the premise that professional autonomy is a "litmus test" for professionals, then physicians and other health care providers may be forced to accept the fact that they have been "deprofessionalized." (60) Alternatively, professionalism may be viewed as a reflection of professionals' contract with, and responsibility to, society. From this perspective, changes in the health care environment present opportunities for professionals to renegotiate their contract with society and re-evaluate their own sense of professionalism. For example, in the medical profession, Stevens emphasized the need to turn away from the past in "reinventing professionalism," (61(p357)) and Sullivan called for "civic professionalism." (62(p11)) From this point of view, the PROI-PT, and its underlying theory, may prove useful for understanding differences among physical therapists as we conceptualize and renegotiate our role in the current health care environment.

Limitations

Some limitations must be kept in mind concerning our results. First, the low response rate and demographic differences from the general membership of APTA warrant caution in generalizing our results to the larger population of physical therapists. We sampled only APTA members, and many physical therapists are not members of the Association. It is possible that the same study performed on a sample of physical therapists who are not members of APTA might have had different results. The sample size was sufficient to analyze the instrument. If we had wanted to establish norms for the profession or to compare groups, however, it would have been necessary to ensure that this sample was representative of the APTA membership and the profession in general, because non-APTA members are very likely to have different views than APTA members of professional role models. Second, the data analyzed were obtained from self-reports and consequently may reflect bias in reporting feelings or opinions. Third, obtaining a "goodfitting" model when conducting structural equation modeling, as in CFA, does not confirm that the resulting model is the only acceptable model or the best model, merely that it is consistent with the observed data. (48(p667)) The fact that our CFA efforts produced an acceptable model (model 6-PROI-PT32C) should not deter other researchers from critiquing and revising theoretical models of professionalism.

Conclusions

This article has illustrated the use of CFA and EFA for improving researchers' insight into survey instruments such as the PROI-PT. The results of our survey of only APTA members suggest that the PROI-PT would benefit from further refinement of its underlying theoretical model and by revising the set of survey items that comprise it. We believe that an instrument that yields valid and reliable measurements of individual differences in professionalism among physical therapists could further our understanding of the psychosocial aspects of physical therapist practice. Exploratory factor analysis and CFA, we contend, are powerful tools for researchers who study various psychosocial constructs in physical therapy.

Appendix.
The Professional Role Orientation Inventory (Physical Therapist
Version) (a)

Directions: Each of us have a view on how our profession should
function in society as a whole. The following section contains several
statements dealing with the relationships between our profession, our
patients, and our society. Please circle a number indicating the
extent to which you agree or disagree with each of these statements
about the way things should be for our profession.

                                             Strongly        Strongly
                                             Agree           Disagree

 1. Once a patient decides to use my         6   5   4   3   2   1
    service, he/she should follow my
    advice without questioning my
    authority.
 2. My first professional obligation is to   6   5   4   3   2   1
    myself.
 3. My profession should be the sole         6   5   4   3   2   1
    custodian of its skills, knowledge,
    and practices.
 4. I feel I have an obligation to use my    6   5   4   3   2   1
    knowledge and skills to help those who
    cannot pay for my services.
 5. I believe the physical therapy           6   5   4   3   2   1
    profession should be more involved in
    providing physical therapy services
    for all those who need it.
 6. The public should have more control      6   5   4   3   2   1
    over health-related policy and
    regulatory agencies.
 7. Given the sacrifices I've made to        6   5   4   3   2   1
    enter the profession, I feel I'm
    entitled to whatever fees the public
    is willing to pay.
 8. A patient who questions my               6   5   4   3   2   1
    recommendations should feel
    comfortable asking another colleague
    for his/her interpretation.
 9. I believe third-party administrators     6   5   4   3   2   1
    should have no role in reviewing
    physical therapists' treatment plans.
10. My profession should not be viewed any   6   5   4   3   2   1
    differently than other occupations
    (carpentry, real estate, retail
    management, etc).
11. A PT who becomes aware of a patient's    6   5   4   3   2   1
    positive HIV status should share that
    information with his/her staff, even
    if the patient objects.
12. Physical therapists ought to lobby for   6   5   4   3   2   1
    physical therapy benefits for the
    disadvantaged.
13. With respect to other health care        6   5   4   3   2   1
    providers (ATCs, massage therapists,
    OTs), I believe the public should
    decide who is given the right to
    direct access.
14. I believe the physical therapy           6   5   4   3   2   1
    curriculum should be determined by the
    profession rather than the public.
15. Because I am a professional, I           6   5   4   3   2   1
    shoulder some responsibility for
    misperceptions that result from other
    physical therapists' advertising.
16. Because patients aren't always the       6   5   4   3   2   1
    best judge of their needs, I should
    use my abilities to the fullest to
    influence treatment decisions.
17. A physical therapist should design       6   5   4   3   2   1
    advertisements to motivate patients to
    purchase PT services.
18. I feel that I have an obligation to      6   5   4   3   2   1
    inform the previous PT as well as
    the patient, if previous physical
    therapy intervention does not appear
    to meet professional standards.
19. Since a patient is the best judge of     6   5   4   3   2   1
    his/her needs and values, a physical
    therapist should provide the services
    the patient wants.
20. Physical therapists should realize       6   5   4   3   2   1
    they are essentially competitors for
    patients in the physical therapy
    marketplace.
21. I feel free to practice my profession    6   5   4   3   2   1
    in my own style and according to my
    own preferences.
22. It's nearly impossible to terminate      6   5   4   3   2   1
    staff once you have hired them.
23. Basically, in my practice I answer to    6   5   4   3   2   1
    no one other than myself.
24. I often feel powerless over the course   6   5   4   3   2   1
    of my career.
25. I feel that social and legal pressures   6   5   4   3   2   1
    pretty much dictate the way I practice
    physical therapy.
26. Insurance companies have too much        6   5   4   3   2   1
    influence over the way I practice
    physical therapy.
27. I'm the best judge of my own work.       6   5   4   3   2   1
28. I am effective in resolving office and   6   5   4   3   2   1
    support staff personnel problems.
29. It's nearly impossible to influence      6   5   4   3   2   1
    regulatory bodies that control the use
    of support personnel.
30. Third-party carriers rarely listen to    6   5   4   3   2   1
    the physical therapist practitioner.
31. Medicare documentation and reporting     6   5   4   3   2   1
    requirements are an unnecessary
    infringement and a gross burden on my
    profession.
32. Employee rights and expectations often   6   5   4   3   2   1
    interfere with effective management of
    PT services in my work setting.
33. Physical therapy does not offer me the   6   5   4   3   2   1
    opportunity for individual freedom and
    control over my life that I expected.
34. When making decisions regarding          6   5   4   3   2   1
    patient care, my professional
    judgment is not compromised by
    external considerations such as
    third-party insurers, etc.
35. My state physical therapy association    6   5   4   3   2   1
    responds effectively to membership
    concerns and complaints.
36. Every time I turn around, there are      6   5   4   3   2   1
    more and more constraints placed
    on my profession.
37. Regulations concerning use of support    6   5   4   3   2   1
    personnel are so restrictive they
    interfere with my ability to provide
    efficient care.
38. State licensing regulations restrict     6   5   4   3   2   1
    my mobility as an independent
    professional.
39. Regulations and the threat of lawsuits   6   5   4   3   2   1
    make it nearly impossible to manage my
    practice as I wish.
40. State regulatory agencies rarely         6   5   4   3   2   1
    listen to the physical therapist
    practitioner.

(a) Adapted with permission from the Professional Role Orientation
Inventory (PROI [R] 1991, Bebeau, Born, and Ozar). The authors reserve
the copyright for the work commonly known as the Professional Role
Orientation Inventory for Physical Therapists (PROI-PT) and its
predecessor, the PROI, including all rights to derivative works made
from such work. Neither the American Physical Therapy Association nor
Physical Therapy is authorized to grant permission to any other
party to reproduce the PROI-PT. The PROI-PT is available, upon
request, from the corresponding author. PT physical therapist, HIV
human immunodeficiency virus, ATC certified athletic trainer, OT
occupational therapist.

Table 1.
Features of Exploratory Factor Analysis and Confirmatory Factor
Analysis

                                            Confirmatory
              Exploratory Factor Analysis   Factor Analysis

Purpose       To identify a factor          To test an existing,
                structure in a set of         theoretical, or
                variables                     hypothesized model or
                                              structure or to
                                              determine which of
                                              several models is the
                                              best fit for the
                                              data (44)

Primary       What are the underlying       Are the covariances
questions       processes that could have     (or correlations) among
                produced correlations         variables consistent
                among the variables? What     with the hypothesized
                is the factor model?          factor structure? How
                (44,48)                       well does the proposed
                                              model explain the
                                              responses? (44,48)

Appropriate   Theory building (44(p109)):   Theory testing (44(p109)):
uses          Early stages of research on   To test a proposed theory
                a topic when trying to        underlying an existing
                establish basic concepts      instrument or to confirm
                and relationships or to       the model of an
                simplify an existing          instrument used in a
                instrument by reducing        different context or
                the number of items to        population
                evaluate the same           To serve as a bridge
                construct (43)                between a theory and
                                              instrument development

Factor        Factors are derived a         A factor model has been
derivation      posteriori or after the       developed a priori or in
                fact by inductive             advance (44(p109))
                reasoning (44(p109))

Statistical   Evaluation of pattern of      Structural equation
analysis        factor loadings using         modeling evaluates fit
                rules of thumb for what       of the hypothesized
                constitutes strong factor     model to the data. Tests
                loadings; typical cutoffs     of significance provided
                range from .30 to .55.        for factor loading
                Quality of solution based     coefficients. Quality of
                on proportion of variance     solution based on
                explained or size of          various fit indexes that
                discrepancies between         summarize discrepancies
                observed and reproduced       between observed and
                covariances.                  reproduced variance-
                                              covariance matrix.

Limitations   1. Identification of          1. Requires extensive
                 factors requires              knowledge of specific
                 judgment of the               statistical procedures
                 researcher (43)            2. Requires relatively
              2. Different statistical         large sample size
                 methods may yield             (44,48)
                 different factors          3. Sample sizes too small
              3. Generating factors from       or large may present
                 correlated items also         problems. The chi-
                 may result in factors         square statistic
                 that are not actually         requires a larger
                 relevant (43(p615))           sample, (44) but a
              4. Requires relatively           very large sample may
                 large sample size             yield differences that
                 (44(p651))                    cause rejection of the
                                               model. However, a very
                                               small sample may be in
                                               error in suggesting a
                                               good fit of the model.
                                               (44(p117),48(p651))
                                            4. Assumes normal
                                               distribution of
                                               variables

Table 2.
Means, Standard Deviations, and Cronbach Alpha Values for the
Professional Role Orientation Inventory for Physical
Therapists (PROI-PT) (a)

                 Random
                 Sample of
                 APTA
                 Members'
                 Mean Scores
                 (n 478) (b)

Scale            X       SD

Authority        34.73   4.55
Responsibility   40.31   4.96
Agency           30.57   6.06
Autonomy         30.67   5.73

                 Cronbach Alpha        Cronbach Alpha
                 for CFA PROI-PT       for CFA PROI-PT
                 Model 1, PROI-PT40A   Model 6, PROI-PT32
Scale            (40 Items) (b)        (32 Items) (b,c)

Authority        .35                   .50
Responsibility   .42                   .62
Agency           .70                   .70
Autonomy         .64                   .64

                 Cronbach Alpha   Cronbach Alpha
                 for EFA Cutoff   for EFA Cutoff
                 of .30 Factor    of .40 Factor
Scale            Loading (c)      Loading (c)

Authority        .05              NA
Responsibility   .49              .44
Agency           .73              .66
Autonomy         .64              .66

(a) APTA American Physical Therapy Association, CFA confirmatory
factor analysis, EFA exploratory factor analysis, NA not applicable.

(b) Includes only those who completed every item and excludes those
with outlier scores (n 25).

(c) Final model (model 6 PROI-PT32) and EFA cutoffs of .30 and .40
are discussed in the text.

Table 3.
Results of Exploratory Factor Analysis Specifying 4-Factor
Solution (a)

                        Factor   Factor   Factor   Factor
Subscale         Item   1        2        3        4

Authority          1     .091     .146     .329     .112
Authority          3     .061    -.016     .298     .088
Authority          6     .041    -.342     .059     .055
Authority          8    -.030    -.190    -.056    -.072
Authority          9     .247     .046     .273    -.008
Authority         10     .043     .085     .198     .029
Authority         13    -.040    -.055     .132     .210
Authority         14    -.067     .020     .157    -.152
Authority         16     .068     .010     .395    -.097
Authority         19     .017    -.090     .138     .074
Responsibility     2    -.068     .015     .276     .173
Responsibility     4    -.107    -.729     .010     .009
Responsibility     5    -.044    -.865    -.054     .032
Responsibility     7     .138     .080     .433     .129
Responsibility    11     .026     .259     .254    -.060
Responsibility    12     .067    -.600    -.045     .063
Responsibility    15     .063    -.115     .168    -.074
Responsibility    17     .017    -.018     .444     .041
Responsibility    18     .027    -.112     .158    -.036
Responsibility    20     .005    -.058     .323    -.050
Autonomy          22     .239     .030     .000     .027
Autonomy          24     .552    -.027     .047     .132
Autonomy          26     .636    -.077     .135    -.092
Autonomy          28    -.204    -.060     .181    -.143
Autonomy          29     .390     .049     .125     .221
Autonomy          30     .541    -.007     .123     .100
Autonomy          33     .491    -.020     .091     .326
Autonomy          35    -.108    -.024     .033    -.167
Autonomy          37     .372     .026     .157     .287
Autonomy          40     .391    -.037     .160     .341
Agency            21    -.308     .083     .230     .030
Agency            23    -.024     .148     .354     .137
Agency            25     .650     .005     .015     .111
Agency            27     .093     .006     .300     .052
Agency            31     .373    -.009     .263     .121
Agency            32     .303    -.002     .096     .346
Agency            34    -.408    -.071     .053    -.022
Agency            36     .565    -.041     .173     .112
Agency            38     .270    -.014     .054     .630
Agency            39     .428    -.015     .086     .575

(a) Total variance accounted for 21.8%. Items are arranged
according to their hypothesized groupings.

Table 4.
Summary of Model Fit Statistics (Confirmatory Factor Analysis) (a)

                                           Discrepancy

                                           [chi
Model                                      square]   df    P      GFI

Model 1, PROI-PT40A (40 items): most       1707.04   734   .001   .838
  restrictive, with each item loading
  on only one factor
Model 2, PROI-PT40B (40 items): dual       1620.16   732   .001   .846
  loadings of items 2 and 6
Model 3 PROI-PT33 (33 items): dual         1067.27   487   .001   .873
  loadings of items 2 and 6; dropped 7
  items that did not load on any factors
Model 4, PROI-PT32A (32 items): dual        976.31   456   .001   .881
  loadings of items 2 and 6 without 7
  items; dropped item 7, which loaded
  on all 4 factors
Model 5, PROI-PT32B (32 items): dropped     980.02   458   .001   .880
  nonsignificant intended loadings of
  items 2 and 6
Model 6, PROI-PT32C (32 items): dropped     756.09   449   .001   .908
  nonsignificant intended loadings of
  items 2 and 6; added 9 of 496 residual
  convariance terms

                                           Discrepancy

Model                                      AGFI   CFI    RMSEA   RMR

Model 1, PROI-PT40A (40 items): most       .819   .666    .056   .068
  restrictive, with each item loading
  on only one factor
Model 2, PROI-PT40B (40 items): dual       .827   .695    .054   .067
  loadings of items 2 and 6
Model 3 PROI-PT33 (33 items): dual         .854   .777    .053   .063
  loadings of items 2 and 6; dropped 7
  items that did not load on any factors
Model 4, PROI-PT32A (32 items): dual       .862   .798    .052   .058
  loadings of items 2 and 6 without 7
  items; dropped item 7, which loaded
  on all 4 factors
Model 5, PROI-PT32B (32 items): dropped    .892   .794    .052   .059
  nonsignificant intended loadings of
  items 2 and 6
Model 6, PROI-PT32C (32 items): dropped    .892   .881    .036   .052
  nonsignificant intended loadings of
  items 2 and 6; added 9 of 496 residual
  convariance terms

(a) 2 minimum fit function test, GFI goodness-of-fit index, AGFI
adjusted goodness-of-fit index, CFI comparative fit index, RMSEA
root mean square error of approximation, RMR standardized root
mean square residual.

Table 5.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Factor Loadings for the Professional Role
Orientation Inventory for Physical Therapists (PROI-PT) (Model 6,
PROI-PT32C) (a)

       Factor      Loadings
Item   Authority   Responsibility   Agency   Autonomy

1       .705
3       .334
6      *            .334
8      -.336
9       .380
10      .177
16      .220
2       .390       *
4                   .731
5                   .880
11                 -.276
12                  .586
22                                   .227
24                                   .508
26                                   .539
28                                  -.195
29                                   .496
30                                   .564
33                                   .554
35                                  -.166
37                                   .495
40                                   .543
21                                           -.225
23                                            .116
25                                            .603
27                                            .170
31                                            .421
32                                            .414
34                                           -.365
36                                            .590
38                                            .465
39                                            .596

(a) All factor loadings shown are significant (P < .05, n = 478
physical therapists). Eight items were eliminated because they
did not load on any factors, or they loaded on all 4 factors.
Asterisk indicates items 2 and 6 were previously reported to
load in these factors.

Table 6.
Items and Internal Consistency (Cronbach Alpha) for Final Models
in Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Exploratory Factor
Analysis (EFA) (a)

                 EFA (Cutoff .30)

                                              Internal
Scale            Items                        Consistency

Authority        1, 6, 16                     [alpha] = 05
Responsibility   4, 5, 7, 12, 17, 20          [alpha] = 49
Autonomy         24, 26, 29, 30, 33, 37, 40   [alpha] = 73
Agency           21, 23, 25, 27, 31, 32,      [alpha] = 64
                 34, 36, 38, 39
Summary          Items included=26
                 Items excluded=14
                 Cross-loading items=4

                 EFA (Cutoff .40)

                                         Internal
Scale            Items                   Consistency

Authority        None                    [alpha] = NA
Responsibility   4, 5, 7, 12, 17         [alpha] = 44
Autonomy         24, 26, 30, 33          [alpha] = 66
Agency           25, 34, 36, 38, 39      [alpha] = 66
Summary          Items included=14
                 Items excluded=26
                 Cross-loading items=2

                 CFA (Model 6, PROI-PT32C)

                                             Internal
Scale            Items                       Consistency

Authority        1, 2, (b) 3, 8, 9, 10, 16   [alpha] = 50
Responsibility   4, 5, 6,c11, 12             [alpha] = 62
Autonomy         22, 24, 26, 28, 29,         [alpha] = 70
                   30, 33, 35, 37, 40
Agency           21, 23, 25, 27, 31,         [alpha] = 64
                   32, 34, 36, 38, 39
Summary          Items included=32
                 Items excluded=8
                 Cross-loading=NA

(a) PROI-PT Professional Role Orientation Inventory for Physical
Therapists, NA not applicable.

(b) Item 2 switched from responsibility to authority.

(b) Item 6 switched from authority to responsibility.

Table 7.
Correlations Among Factors of the Professional Role Orientation
Inventory for Physical Therapists (PROI-PT) After Confirmatory
Factor Analysis (a)

                 Authority   Responsibility   Agency      Autonomy

Authority        1.000
Responsibility   -.191 (a)   1.000
Agency            .288 (a)   -.024            1.000
Autonomy          .310 (a)   -.030             .980 (a)   1.000

(a) P .05, n 478 physical therapists.

* SPSS Inc, 233 S Wacker Dr, Chicago, IL 60606.

[dagger] Scientific Software International Inc, 7383 N Lincoln Ave, Suite 100, Chicago, IL 60646-1704.

References

(1) Perry J. Professionalism in physical therapy. Phys Ther. 1964;44: 429-434.

(2) Hislop HJ. Tenth Mary McMillan Lecture: The not-so-impossible dream. Phys Ther. 1975;55:1069-1080.

(3) Clinical Research Agenda for Physical Therapy. Phys Ther. 2000;80: 499-513.

(4) Scalzitti DA. Evidence-based guidelines: application to clinical practice. Phys Ther. 2001;81:1622-1616.

(5) APTA Vision Statement for Physical Therapy 2020. American Physical Therapy Association House of Delegates (HOD 06-00-24-35). Available at: http://www.apta.org/About/aptamissiongoals/visionstatement. Accessed August 28, 2003.

(6) Professionalism in Physical Therapy [consensus document of the American Physical Therapy Association]. Alexandria, Va: American Physical Therapy Association; 2003.

(7) Rothstein JM. Autonomy or professionalism [editor's note]? Phys Ther. 2003;83:206-207.

(8) Rothstein JM. Autonomy and dependency [editor's note]. Phys Ther. 2002;82:750-751.

(9) Massey BF Jr. 2002 APTA Presidential Address: What's all the fuss about direct access? Phys Ther. 2002;82:1120-1123.

(10) Purtilo RB. Thirty-First Mary McMillan Lecture: A time to harvest, a time to sow: ethics for a shifting landscape. Phys Ther. 2000;80: 1112-1119.

(11) Worthingham CA. Second Mary McMillan Lecture: Complementary functions and responsibilities in an emerging profession. Phys Ther. 1965;45:935-939.

(12) Massey BF Jr. 2001 APTA Presidential Address: We have arrived! Phys Ther. 2001;81:1830-1833.

(13) Connelly JE. The other side of professionalism: doctor-to-doctor. Camb Q Healthc Ethics. 2003;12:178-183.

(14) Swick HM. Toward a normative definition of medical professionalism. Acad Med. 2000;75:612-616.

(15) Larson MS. Professionalism: rise and fall. Int J Health Serv. 1979;9: 607-627.

(16) Weber M; Roth G, Wittich C, eds; Fischoff E et al, trans. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Vol 1. New York, NY: Bedminster Press; 1968.

(17) Latham SR. Medical professionalism: a Parsonian view. Mt Sinai J Med. 2002;69:363-369.

(18) Carr-Saunders AM. Professionalization in historical perspective. In: Vollmer HM, Mills DL, eds. Professionalization. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1966:3-9.

(19) Ritzer G. Professionalization, bureaucratization and rationalization: the views of Max Weber. Social Forces. 1975;53:627-634.

(20) Wilensky HL. The professionalization of everyone? American Journal of Sociology. 1964;70:137-158.

(21) Forsyth BF, Danisiewicz TJ. Toward a theory of professionalization. Work and Occupations. 1985;12(1):59-76.

(22) Cruess RL, Cruess SR, Johnston SE. Professionalism: an ideal to be sustained. Lancet. 2000;356(9224):156-159.

(23) Adams D, Miller BK, Beck L. Professionalism behaviors of hospital nurse executives and middle managers in 10 western states. West J Nurs Res. 1996;18:77-89.

(24) Bellner AL. Senses of responsibility: a challenge for occupational and physical therapists in the context of ongoing professionalization. Scand J Caring Sci. 1999;13:55-62.

(25) Hall RH. Professionalization and bureaucratization. American Sociological Review. 1968;33:92-104.

(26) Snizek WE. Hall's professionalism scale: an empirical reassessment. American Sociological Review. 1972;37:109-114.

(27) Silva DM, Clark SD, Raymond G. California physicians' professional image of therapists. Phys Ther. 1981;61:1152-1157.

(28) Luna-Massey P, Smyle L. Attitudes of consumers of physical therapy in California toward the professional image of physical therapists. Phys Ther. 1982;62:309-314.

(29) Moore WE. The Professions: Roles and Rules. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation; 1970.

(30) Pavalko RM. Sociology of Occupations and Professions. Itaska, Ill: FE Peacock Publishers; 1971.

(31) Lopopolo RB. Development of the professional role behaviors survey (PROBES). Phys Ther. 2001;81:1317-1327.

(32) Lopopolo RB. Hospital restructuring and the changing nature of the physical therapist's role. Phys Ther. 1999;79:171-185.

(33) May WW, Morgan BJ, Lemke JC, et al. Model for ability-based assessment in physical therapy education. Journal of Physical Therapy Education. 1995;9(1):3-6.

(34) Jette DU, Portney LG. Construct validation of a model for professional behavior in physical therapist students. Phys Ther. 2003:83: 432-443.

(35) Bebeau MJ, Born DO, Ozar DT. The development of a professional role orientation inventory. Journal of the American College of Dentists. 1993;60(2):27-33.

(36) May WE. The Physician's Covenant: Images of the Healer in Medical Ethics. Philadelphia, Pa: Westminster Press; 1983.

(37) Veatch RM. Models for ethical medicine in a revolutionary age. Hastings Cent Rep. 1972;2:5-7.

(38) Ozar DT. Patient's autonomy: three models of the professional-lay relationship in medicine. Theor Med. 1984;5:61-68.

(39) Ozar DT. Three models of professionalism and professional obligation in dentistry. Journal of the American Dental Association. 1985;110: 173-177.

(40) Thoma SJ, Bebeau MJ, Born DO. Further analysis of the Professional Role Orientation Inventory. J Dent Res. 1998;77:120.

(41) Born DO, Bebeau MJ, Rozmenoski SJ. Analysis of the professional role orientation inventory [abstract]. J Dent Res. 1995(special issue): 162.

(42) Domholdt E. Physical Therapy Research: Principles and Applications. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders Co; 2000.

(43) Portney LG, Watkins MP. Foundations of Clinical Research: Applications to Research. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle, NJ: Prentice Hall Health; 2000.

(44) Bryant FB, Yarnold PR. Principal-components analysis and exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. In: Grimm LG, Yarnold PR, eds. Reading and Understanding Multivariate Statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1995:99-136.

(45) Beckstead JW. Confirmatory factor analysis of the Maslach Burnout Inventory among Florida nurses. Int J Nurs Stud. 2002;39:785-792.

(46) Tabachnick BG, Fidell LS. Using Multivariate Statistics. 4th ed. Boston, Mass: Allyn and Bacon; 2001.

(47) Joreskog KG, Sorbom D. LISREL Version 8.54: User's Reference Guide [electronic manual]. Chicago, Ill: Scientific Software International Inc; 2003.

(48) Pedhazur E, Schmelkin L. Measurement, Design and Analysis: An Integrated Approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991.

(49) Browne MW, Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen KA, Long JS, eds. Testing Structural Equation Models. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage Publications; 1993:136-162.

(50) Bentler PM. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychol Bull. 1988;107:238-246.

(51) Hu L-T, Bentler PM. Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling. 1999;1:1-55.

(52) Creative Research Systems, Sample Size Calculator. Available at: http://www.surveysystem.com/sscal.htm#terminology. Accessed May 22, 2002.

(53) Surveys and Stats. American Physical Therapy Association Web site. Available at: http://www.apta.org/Research/survey_stat. Accessed May 22, 2002.

(54) Norman G, Streiner D. Biostatistics: The Bare Essentials. St Louis, Mo: Mosby; 1994.

(55) Gonzalez R, Griffin D. Testing parameters in structural equation modeling: every "one" matters. Psychol Methods. 2001;6:258-269.

(56) Bentler PM, Chou C. Practical issues in structural modeling. Sociological Methods and Research. 1987;6:78-117.

(57) Alsawalmeh YM, Feldt LS. Testing the equality of two related_coefficients adjusted by the Spearman-Brown formula. Applied Psych Measurement. 2000;24:163-172.

(58) Fox WJ, Vonk JA. Comments on "Hall's professionalism scale: an empirical assessment." American Sociological Review. 1973;38:392-395.

(59) Bebeau MJ. Influencing the moral dimensions of dental practice. In: Rest JR, Narvaez D, eds. Moral Development in the Professions: Psychology and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1994:121-146.

(60) Reed RR, Evans D. The deprofessionalization of medicine. JAMA. 1987;258:3279-3282.

(61) Stevens RA. Themes in the history of medical professionalism. Mt Sinai J Med. 2002;69:357-362.

(62) Sullivan WM. What is left of professionalism after managed care? Hastings Cent Rep. 1999;29(12):7-13.

LL Swisher, PT, PhD, is Assistant Professor, School of Physical Therapy, College of Medicine, University of South Florida, 12901 North Bruce B Downs Blvd, MDC 77, Tampa, FL 33612-4766 (USA) ([e-mail]). Address all correspondence to Dr Swisher.

JW Beckstead, PhD, is Associate Professor, College of Nursing, University of South Florida.

MJ Bebeau, PhD, is Professor, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, and Director, Center for the Study of Ethical Development, Minneapolis, Minn.

All authors provided concept/idea/research design and writing. Dr Swisher provided data collection, and Dr Swisher and Dr Beckstead provided data analysis. Dr Swisher provided project management and fund procurement. Dr Beckstead and Dr Bebeau provided consultation (including review of manuscript before submission). The authors thank the members of the American Physical Therapy Association who generously contributed their time and effort to complete questionnaires. They also thank Celinda Evitt, Marjory Lattin, Kelly Lattin, Brian Lattin, and Travis Lattin, who assisted in the preparation of the survey and processing of the data.

Preliminary results of this study were presented at Physical Therapy 2002: Annual Conference and Exposition of the American Physical Therapy Association; Cincinnati, Ohio; June 8, 2002.

This study was approved by the University of South Florida Institutional Review Board under exempt category 2. This work was supported, in part, by the University of South Florida Research and Creative Scholarship Grant Program under Grant No. 804.

This article was received September 10, 2003, and was accepted April 7, 2004.