Dimensionality assessment in bifactor structures with multiple general factors: A network psychometrics approach.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Marcos Jiménez, Francisco J Abad, Eduardo Garcia-Garzon, Hudson Golino, Alexander P Christensen, Luis Eduardo Garrido
{"title":"Dimensionality assessment in bifactor structures with multiple general factors: A network psychometrics approach.","authors":"Marcos Jiménez,&nbsp;Francisco J Abad,&nbsp;Eduardo Garcia-Garzon,&nbsp;Hudson Golino,&nbsp;Alexander P Christensen,&nbsp;Luis Eduardo Garrido","doi":"10.1037/met0000590","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The accuracy of factor retention methods for structures with one or more general factors, like the ones typically encountered in fields like intelligence, personality, and psychopathology, has often been overlooked in dimensionality research. To address this issue, we compared the performance of several factor retention methods in this context, including a network psychometrics approach developed in this study. For estimating the number of group factors, these methods were the Kaiser criterion, empirical Kaiser criterion, parallel analysis with principal components (PA<sub>PCA</sub>) or principal axis, and exploratory graph analysis with Louvain clustering (EGA<sub>LV</sub>). We then estimated the number of general factors using the factor scores of the first-order solution suggested by the best two methods, yielding a \"second-order\" version of PA<sub>PCA</sub> (PAP<sub>CA-FS</sub>) and EGA<sub>LV</sub> (EGA<sub>LV-FS</sub>). Additionally, we examined the direct multilevel solution provided by EGA<sub>LV</sub>. All the methods were evaluated in an extensive simulation manipulating nine variables of interest, including population error. The results indicated that EGA<sub>LV</sub> and PA<sub>PCA</sub> displayed the best overall performance in retrieving the true number of group factors, the former being more sensitive to high cross-loadings, and the latter to weak group factors and small samples. Regarding the estimation of the number of general factors, both PAP<sub>CA-FS</sub> and EGA<sub>LV-FS</sub> showed a close to perfect accuracy across all the conditions, while EGA<sub>LV</sub> was inaccurate. The methods based on EGA were robust to the conditions most likely to be encountered in practice. Therefore, we highlight the particular usefulness of EGA<sub>LV</sub> (group factors) and EGA<sub>LV-FS</sub> (general factors) for assessing bifactor structures with multiple general factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000590","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The accuracy of factor retention methods for structures with one or more general factors, like the ones typically encountered in fields like intelligence, personality, and psychopathology, has often been overlooked in dimensionality research. To address this issue, we compared the performance of several factor retention methods in this context, including a network psychometrics approach developed in this study. For estimating the number of group factors, these methods were the Kaiser criterion, empirical Kaiser criterion, parallel analysis with principal components (PAPCA) or principal axis, and exploratory graph analysis with Louvain clustering (EGALV). We then estimated the number of general factors using the factor scores of the first-order solution suggested by the best two methods, yielding a "second-order" version of PAPCA (PAPCA-FS) and EGALV (EGALV-FS). Additionally, we examined the direct multilevel solution provided by EGALV. All the methods were evaluated in an extensive simulation manipulating nine variables of interest, including population error. The results indicated that EGALV and PAPCA displayed the best overall performance in retrieving the true number of group factors, the former being more sensitive to high cross-loadings, and the latter to weak group factors and small samples. Regarding the estimation of the number of general factors, both PAPCA-FS and EGALV-FS showed a close to perfect accuracy across all the conditions, while EGALV was inaccurate. The methods based on EGA were robust to the conditions most likely to be encountered in practice. Therefore, we highlight the particular usefulness of EGALV (group factors) and EGALV-FS (general factors) for assessing bifactor structures with multiple general factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

具有多个一般因素的双因素结构的维度评估:一种网络心理测量方法。
因子保留方法对于具有一个或多个一般因素的结构的准确性,如智力、人格和精神病理学等领域通常遇到的因素保留方法,在维度研究中经常被忽视。为了解决这个问题,我们比较了几种因素保留方法在这种情况下的表现,包括本研究中开发的网络心理测量学方法。估计类群因子数量的方法有Kaiser准则、经验Kaiser准则、主成分平行分析(PAPCA)或主轴平行分析、Louvain聚类探索性图分析(EGALV)。然后,我们使用最佳两种方法建议的一阶解的因子得分来估计一般因子的数量,从而产生“二阶”版本的PAPCA (PAPCA- fs)和EGALV (EGALV- fs)。此外,我们还检查了由EGALV提供的直接多级解决方案。所有的方法都在一个广泛的模拟中进行了评估,该模拟操纵了九个感兴趣的变量,包括总体误差。结果表明,EGALV和PAPCA在检索组因子真实数量方面表现出最佳的综合性能,前者对高交叉负荷更为敏感,后者对弱组因子和小样本更为敏感。对于一般因子数量的估计,PAPCA-FS和EGALV- fs在所有条件下都显示出接近完美的准确性,而EGALV则不准确。基于EGA的方法对实际中最可能遇到的情况具有较强的鲁棒性。因此,我们强调了EGALV(群体因素)和EGALV- fs(一般因素)在评估具有多个一般因素的双因素结构方面的特别有用性。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c) 2023 APA,版权所有)。
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
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
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