MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2087062758 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_02

Factor Analytic Models: Viewing the Structure of an Assessment Instrument From Three Perspectives

2005· review· en· W2087062758 on OpenAlexaff
Barbara M. Byrne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfirmatory factor analysisPsychologyStructural equation modelingCLARITYExploratory factor analysisPsychometricsNotional amountSocial psychologyClinical psychologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The overarching purpose of this article is to present a nonmathematical introduction to the application of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) within the framework of structural equation modeling as it applies to psychological assessment instruments. In the interest of clarity and ease of understanding, I model exploratory factor analysis (EFA) structure in addition to first- and second-order CFA structures. All factor analytic structures are based on the same measuring instrument, the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996). Following a "walk" through the general process of CFA modeling, I identify several common misconceptions and improper application practices with respect to both EFA and CFA and tender caveats with a view to preventing further proliferation of these pervasive practices.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.029
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.154

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0290.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.689
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.100 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations492
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Personality AssessmentSame topicPsychometric Methodologies and TestingFrench-language works237,207