Factorial validity of the Chedoke-McMaster Attitudes towards Children with Handicaps Scale (CATCH).

Bossaert et al. (2013) ran a confirmatory factor analysis on the CATCH scale. CATCH asks students how they feel about classmates with disabilities.

The goal was to check if the original three-subscale scoring still fits. The team tested a mixed group of middle-school kids.

The three-subscale model failed. A shorter, single 7-item factor fit best and worked the same for all students.

In plain words: use only seven items and one total score, not three separate scores.

Sáez-Suanes et al. (2023) also used CFA and kept the Autism Impact Measure’s five-factor structure. Their structure held, while CATCH’s did not. The difference shows that CFA sometimes keeps a scale and sometimes trims it.

Prigge et al. (2013) challenged the ABC-C five-factor model for toddlers, just like Goele challenged CATCH. Both papers tell us to re-check factor fit when the age group or context changes.

Zaidman-Zait et al. (2020) revised the Children’s Sleep Habits Questionnaire into five cleaner factors. Their success and Goele’s failure together warn us: factor structures do not always transfer across samples.

If you give CATCH to measure peer attitudes, score only the seven items that held up. Drop the old three-subscale printout. This saves time and gives a more trustworthy number for your inclusion reports or anti-bullying plans.