MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124330658 · doi:10.1002/per.771

What multi‐method data tell us about construct validity

2010· article· en· W2124330658 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

VenueEuropean Journal of Personality · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicPsychometric Methodologies and Testing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyPersonalityConstruct validityConstruct (python library)Structural equation modelingVariance (accounting)Incremental validityEconometricsPsychometricsSocial psychologyStatisticsDevelopmental psychologyComputer scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Structural equation modelling of multi‐method data has become a popular method to examine construct validity and to control for random and systematic measurement error in personality measures. I review the essential assumptions underlying causal models of multi‐method data and their implications for estimating the validity of personality measures. The main conclusions are that causal models of multi‐method data can be used to obtain quantitative estimates of the amount of valid variance in measures of personality dispositions, but that it is more difficult to determine the validity of personality measures of act frequencies and situation‐specific dispositions. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.155
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.155
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.734
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.201 · 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