Implications of A Measurement Invariance Study by Age Cohorts for the Life Satisfaction Survey for Apostolic Women Religious (LSSAWR)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A measurement invariance study was performed on the Life Satisfaction Survey for Apostolic Women Religious (LSSAWR) across age cohorts to support its continued use to assess satisfaction with religious life across an individual sister’s life span, and to conduct intergenerational comparisons within and across congregations worldwide. Unfortunately, measurement invariance (MI) is often assumed rather than tested but is important to determine when comparisons are conducted across groups. Establishing MI produces confidence that the differences observed are a result of real differences between groups rather than a result of group membership. In general, the current study provides evidence that the LSSAWR is MI for life satisfaction across the Silent, Baby Boomer, and Generation X cohorts and should be robust to many types of analyses. Therefore, the continued use of the LSSAWR to provide feedback to individual Sisters and congregations of women religious regarding commitment to religious life and overall life satisfaction is supported. The most notable result was two of the five dimensions of the scale were statistically indistinguishable for the Silent generation, but not for the Baby Boomer or Generation X cohorts. This article discusses the importance of measurement invariance studies and implications for instruments used across the life span with items that could be age sensitive.
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 | 0.158 | 0.292 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".