Direct and conceptual replications of the taxometric analysis of type a behavior.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present direct and conceptual replications of the influential taxometric analysis of Type A Behavior (TAB; Strube, 1989), which reported evidence for the latent typology of the construct. Study 1, the direct replication (N = 2,373), duplicated sampling and methodological procedures of the original study, but results showed that the item indicators used in the original study lacked sufficient validity to unambiguously determine latent structure. Using improved factorial subscale indicators to further test the question, multiple taxometric procedures, in combination with parallel analyses of simulated data, failed to replicate the original typological finding. Study 2, the conceptual replication, tested the latent structure of the wider construct of TAB using the sample from the Caerphilly Prospective Study (N = 2,254), which contains responses to the three most widely used self-report measures of TAB: the Jenkins Activity Survey, Bortner scale, and Framingham scale. Factorial subscale indicators were derived from the measures and submitted to multiple taxometric procedures. Results of Study 2 converged with those of Study 1, providing clear evidence of latent dimensional structure. Overall, results suggest there is no evidence for the type in TAB. Findings imply that theoretical models of TAB, assessment practices, and data analytic procedures that assume a typology should be replaced by dimensional models, factorial subscale measures, and corresponding statistical approaches. Specific subscale measures that tap multiple Big Five trait domains, and show evidence of predictive utility, are also recommended. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.130 | 0.522 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".