Examining the Factor Structure and Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Life Orientation Test in Older Chinese Immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study examined the factor structure and psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Revised Life Orientation Test (CLOT-R) in a sample of 342 community-dwelling older Chinese immigrants in Canada (mean age = 71.99, SD = 5.62; 58.5% female). Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated that the CLOT-R yields a two-factor model with one item cross-loading on two latent constructs of optimism and pessimism. Analysis further revealed poor internal consistency and convergent validity. Evidence for discriminant and convergent validity was found between optimism and perceived stress, as well as optimism and quality of life. Compared with the factor structure reported in previous Chinese-speaking samples, the modified two-factor structure found in the current group of older Chinese immigrants could be attributed to the heterogeneity of the sample and possible configural variance across culture and age. Overall, the current findings suggest that the CLOT-R may not be a reliable and valid measure to assess dispositional optimism and pessimism among older Chinese immigrants. Theoretical implications and suggestions for further scale development and research is discussed.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".