Professional identity can begin to form before entry into full professional practice, yet cross-domain measures for university students must distinguish this emergent identity from identification with an academic major or discipline and must accommodate a strong general factor. A 42-item pool was examined in a construction sample ( n = 836), and the 34-item Professional Identity Generic Scale (PIGS) was evaluated in a validation sample ( n = 1,533). Analyses included oblique exploratory factor analysis (EFA), competing confirmatory factor models, bifactor reliability indices, content-validity indices, sensitivity analyses for uniform response profiles, and a confirmatory bifactor graded response model (B-GRM). The B-GRM evaluation explicitly examined ordered response thresholds/category functioning, item information, local dependence, and differential item functioning (DIF). Parallel analysis suggested three broad factors, whereas theory-guided six-domain EFA retained the intended content blueprint. The bifactor CFA provided the best approximate fit (CFI = 0.942, TLI = 0.934, RMSEA = 0.059, SRMR = 0.034); omegaH = 0.936 and ECV = 0.771 supported a strong general score, while domain-specific omegaHS values were 0.050-0.344. In the B-GRM, general discriminations ranged from 1.81 to 3.72, general-axis thresholds were ordered (-4.30 to 2.04), and the global correlation RMSR was 0.050. Only one adjusted Q3 pair exceeded 0.20 (Items 29–31, 0.207), and no gender or study-stage DIF effect reached the prespecified practical criterion (Delta R2 > = 0.02). Within the sampled Chinese university-student context, the PIGS is best interpreted as a measure of a strong general professional-identity construct sampled through six theoretically specified content domains. The total score is the principal score supported by the evidence; domain summaries may be used descriptively but not as independent latent scales.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Deng et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: