Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This article provides an overview of factor analysis from the perspective of measurement in clinical research. Summary of Key Points: Factor analysis is a statistical technique that identifies interrelationships among a set of items in an instrument and/or questionnaire and groups them into homogeneous domains. Exploratory factor analysis can be used to reduce the number of items in a questionnaire and identify its underlying domains. Confirmatory factor analysis can be used to test a hypothesis about the domain structure of a questionnaire. Principal component analysis and common factor analysis are the most common techniques and differ based on the amount of variability that is analyzed among items. Steps of the factor analytical process include assessing correlation matrices, factor extraction, choosing the number of factors to retain, assessing the factor loading matrix, factor rotation and factor interpretation. Because no standardized method exists, factor analysis involves decision-making at each step. Conclusions: The different techniques and methods of factor analysis each have unique strengths and limitations. Clinicians and researchers reviewing articles on factor analysis should ensure that authors state a priori their purpose, conceptual approach, preferred technique and methods that will guide their decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.058 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".