Thinking About Sum Scores Yet Again, Maybe the Last Time, We Don’t Know, Oh No . . .: A Comment on

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Keith F. Widaman, William Revelle
{"title":"Thinking About Sum Scores Yet Again, Maybe the Last Time, We Don’t Know, Oh No . . .: A Comment on","authors":"Keith F. Widaman, William Revelle","doi":"10.1177/00131644231205310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The relative advantages and disadvantages of sum scores and estimated factor scores are issues of concern for substantive research in psychology. Recently, while championing estimated factor scores over sum scores, McNeish offered a trenchant rejoinder to an article by Widaman and Revelle, which had critiqued an earlier paper by McNeish and Wolf. In the recent contribution, McNeish misrepresented a number of claims by Widaman and Revelle, rendering moot his criticisms of Widaman and Revelle. Notably, McNeish chose to avoid confronting a key strength of sum scores stressed by Widaman and Revelle—the greater comparability of results across studies if sum scores are used. Instead, McNeish pivoted to present a host of simulation studies to identify relative strengths of estimated factor scores. Here, we review our prior claims and, in the process, deflect purported criticisms by McNeish. We discuss briefly issues related to simulated data and empirical data that provide evidence of strengths of each type of score. In doing so, we identified a second strength of sum scores: superior cross-validation of results across independent samples of empirical data, at least for samples of moderate size. We close with consideration of four general issues concerning sum scores and estimated factor scores that highlight the contrasts between positions offered by McNeish and by us, issues of importance when pursuing applied research in our field.","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00131644231205310","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The relative advantages and disadvantages of sum scores and estimated factor scores are issues of concern for substantive research in psychology. Recently, while championing estimated factor scores over sum scores, McNeish offered a trenchant rejoinder to an article by Widaman and Revelle, which had critiqued an earlier paper by McNeish and Wolf. In the recent contribution, McNeish misrepresented a number of claims by Widaman and Revelle, rendering moot his criticisms of Widaman and Revelle. Notably, McNeish chose to avoid confronting a key strength of sum scores stressed by Widaman and Revelle—the greater comparability of results across studies if sum scores are used. Instead, McNeish pivoted to present a host of simulation studies to identify relative strengths of estimated factor scores. Here, we review our prior claims and, in the process, deflect purported criticisms by McNeish. We discuss briefly issues related to simulated data and empirical data that provide evidence of strengths of each type of score. In doing so, we identified a second strength of sum scores: superior cross-validation of results across independent samples of empirical data, at least for samples of moderate size. We close with consideration of four general issues concerning sum scores and estimated factor scores that highlight the contrasts between positions offered by McNeish and by us, issues of importance when pursuing applied research in our field.
再一次思考求和分数,也许是最后一次,我们不知道,哦不…:评论
总和分数和估计因子分数的相对优劣是心理学实质性研究关注的问题。最近,麦克尼什在支持估计因子得分高于总和得分的同时,对Widaman和Revelle的一篇文章提出了尖锐的反驳,这篇文章批评了麦克尼什和沃尔夫早先的一篇论文。在最近的文章中,McNeish歪曲了Widaman和Revelle的一些观点,使他对Widaman和Revelle的批评变得毫无意义。值得注意的是,McNeish选择避免面对Widaman和revelve强调的总和分数的关键优势-如果使用总和分数,则研究结果的可比性更大。相反,麦克尼什转而提出了一系列模拟研究,以确定估计因素得分的相对优势。在这里,我们回顾我们之前的主张,并在此过程中,转移McNeish的批评。我们简要讨论了与模拟数据和经验数据相关的问题,这些数据提供了每种类型得分优势的证据。在这样做的过程中,我们确定了总和分数的第二个优势:至少对于中等规模的样本,在经验数据的独立样本中,结果的交叉验证效果更好。最后,我们考虑了关于总分数和估计因子分数的四个一般问题,这些问题突出了麦克尼什和我们提供的职位之间的对比,这是在我们的领域进行应用研究时的重要问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信