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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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