评估探索性因素分析结果中可避免的异质性。

IF 7.8 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Psychological methods Pub Date : 2025-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-11 DOI:10.1037/met0000589
Patrick D Manapat, Samantha F Anderson, Michael C Edwards
{"title":"评估探索性因素分析结果中可避免的异质性。","authors":"Patrick D Manapat, Samantha F Anderson, Michael C Edwards","doi":"10.1037/met0000589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Meaningful interpretations of scores derived from psychological scales depend on the replicability of psychometric properties. Despite this, and unexpected inconsistencies in psychometric results across studies, psychometrics has often been overlooked in the replication literature. In this article, we begin to address replication issues in exploratory factor analysis (EFA). We use a Monte Carlo simulation to investigate methodological choices made throughout the EFA process that have the potential to add heterogeneity to results. Our findings show that critical decision points for EFA include the method for determining the number of factors as well as rotation. The results also demonstrate the relevancy of data characteristics, as some contexts are more susceptible to the effects of methodological choice on the heterogeneity of results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":"660-677"},"PeriodicalIF":7.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating avoidable heterogeneity in exploratory factor analysis results.\",\"authors\":\"Patrick D Manapat, Samantha F Anderson, Michael C Edwards\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/met0000589\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Meaningful interpretations of scores derived from psychological scales depend on the replicability of psychometric properties. Despite this, and unexpected inconsistencies in psychometric results across studies, psychometrics has often been overlooked in the replication literature. In this article, we begin to address replication issues in exploratory factor analysis (EFA). We use a Monte Carlo simulation to investigate methodological choices made throughout the EFA process that have the potential to add heterogeneity to results. Our findings show that critical decision points for EFA include the method for determining the number of factors as well as rotation. The results also demonstrate the relevancy of data characteristics, as some contexts are more susceptible to the effects of methodological choice on the heterogeneity of results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20782,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychological methods\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"660-677\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychological methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000589\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000589","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

对来自心理量表的分数的有意义的解释取决于心理测量属性的可复制性。尽管如此,在不同的研究中,心理测量结果出乎意料的不一致,心理测量在复制文献中经常被忽视。在本文中,我们开始解决探索性因子分析(EFA)中的复制问题。我们使用蒙特卡罗模拟来调查在整个全民教育过程中所做的方法选择,这些选择可能会增加结果的异质性。我们的研究结果表明,全民教育的关键决策点包括确定因素数量的方法以及轮换。结果还证明了数据特征的相关性,因为一些背景更容易受到方法选择对结果异质性的影响。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 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。
Evaluating avoidable heterogeneity in exploratory factor analysis results.

Meaningful interpretations of scores derived from psychological scales depend on the replicability of psychometric properties. Despite this, and unexpected inconsistencies in psychometric results across studies, psychometrics has often been overlooked in the replication literature. In this article, we begin to address replication issues in exploratory factor analysis (EFA). We use a Monte Carlo simulation to investigate methodological choices made throughout the EFA process that have the potential to add heterogeneity to results. Our findings show that critical decision points for EFA include the method for determining the number of factors as well as rotation. The results also demonstrate the relevancy of data characteristics, as some contexts are more susceptible to the effects of methodological choice on the heterogeneity of results. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信