Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reviews methodological issues that arise in the investigation of construct comparability across key comparison groups such as ethnic and gender groups, or adapted/translated versions of tests in the same or different cultures. The authors advocate a multi-method approach to investigating construct comparability. In particular, multi-group exploratory factor analysis is described, in the context of an example, as a complement to the standard multi-group confirmatory factor analysis. We also describe a graphical method of investigating if the congruence coefficients in multi-group exploratory factor analysis may be spuriously inflated, hence strengthening the exploratory methodology. The example, from the Canadian School Achievement Indicators Program 1996 Science Assessment, shows how the confirmatory approach may not support construct comparability when the exploratory does. Reasons for why this may happen, and why the exploratory approach is a good complement, are 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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
| gpt | Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) Domain: not available · Genre: Other About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | low |
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.814 | 0.644 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
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".