A guide to exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and bifactor-ESEM in body image research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, assessments of factor validity of body image instruments have relied on exploratory or confirmatory factor analysis. However, the emergence of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), a resurgence of interest in bifactor models, and the ability to combine both models (bifactor-ESEM) is beginning to shape the future of body image research. For these analytic approaches to truly advance body image research, scholars will need to have a deep understanding of their use and application. To facilitate such understanding, we describe ESEM and bifactor-ESEM models for body image researchers and provide them with the tools they need to apply these methods in their own work. Specifically, we provide an overview of ESEM and bifactor-ESEM models, and describe their broad applicability to body image research. Next, we describe how ESEM and bifactor models can be used and, using an existing dataset of responses to the Acceptance of Cosmetic Surgery Scale, demonstrate how ESEM and bifactor-ESEM models can be deployed. To facilitate wider application of these ideas, we provide our Mplus syntax (inputs) in Supplementary Materials. Through this manuscript, we hope to assist researchers to better understand the strengths ESEM and bifactor models, and to use these approaches in their own work.
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 | 0.048 | 0.126 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.021 |
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".