From Bi-Dimensionality to Uni-Dimensionality in Self-Report Questionnaires
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The common factor model – by far the most widely used model for factor analysis – assumes equal item intercepts across respondents. Due to idiosyncratic ways of understanding and answering items of a questionnaire, this assumption is often violated, leading to an underestimation of model fit. Maydeu-Olivares and Coffman (2006) suggested the introduction of a random intercept into the model to address this concern. The present study applies this method to six established instruments (measuring depression, procrastination, optimism, self-esteem, core self-evaluations, and self-regulation) with ambiguous factor structures, using data from representative general population samples. In testing and comparing three alternative factor models (one-factor model, two-factor model, and one-factor model with a random intercept) and analyzing differential correlational patterns with an external criterion, we empirically demonstrate the random intercept model’s merit, and clarify the factor structure for the above-mentioned questionnaires. In sum, we recommend the random intercept model for cases in which acquiescence is suspected to affect response behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it