How Does the Elimination of Group Mean-Differences Affect Factor Score Determinacy?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study investigates to what degree the common variance of the factor score predictor with the original factor, i.e., the determinacy coefficient or the validity of the factor score predictor, depends on the mean-difference between groups. When mean-differences between groups in the factor score predictor are eliminated by means of covariance analysis, regression, or group specific norms, this may reduce the covariance of the factor score predictor with the common factor. It is shown that in a one-factor model with the same group mean-difference on all observed variables, the common factor cannot be distinguished from a common factor representing the group mean-difference. It is also shown that for common factor loadings equal or larger than .60, the elimination of a d = .50 mean-difference between two groups in the factor score predictor leads to only small decreases of the determinacy coefficient. A compensation-factor k is proposed allowing for the estimation of the number of additional observed variables necessary to recover the size of the determinacy coefficient before elimination of a group mean-difference. It turns out that for factor loadings equal or larger than .60 only a few additional items are needed in order to recover the initial determinacy coefficient after the elimination of moderate or large group mean-differences.
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 | 0.074 | 0.341 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".