Literature DB >> 11285813

A comparison of factor scores under conditions of factor obliquity.

J W Grice1.   

Abstract

Six different methods of computing factor scores were investigated in a simulation study. Population scores created from oblique factor patterns selected from the psychological literature served as the bases for the simulations, and the stability of the different methods was assessed through cross-validation in a subject-sampling model. Results from 5 evaluative criteria indicated that a simplified, unit-weighting procedure based on the factor score coefficients was generally superior to several unit-weighting procedures based on the pattern or structure coefficients. This simplified method of computing factor scores also compared favorably with an exact-weighting scheme based on the full factor score coefficient matrix. Results are discussed with regard to their potential impact on current practice, and several recommendations are offered.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11285813     DOI: 10.1037/1082-989x.6.1.67

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Methods        ISSN: 1082-989X


  16 in total

1.  Behavioral health providers' beliefs about health information exchange: a statewide survey.

Authors:  Nancy Shank
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2011-12-18       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Early therapeutic alliance and treatment outcome in individual and family therapy for adolescent behavior problems.

Authors:  Aaron Hogue; Sarah Dauber; Leyla Faw Stambaugh; John J Cecero; Howard A Liddle
Journal:  J Consult Clin Psychol       Date:  2006-02

3.  LINKING SESSION FOCUS TO TREATMENT OUTCOME IN EVIDENCE-BASED TREATMENTS FOR ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE ABUSE.

Authors:  Aaron Hogue; Sarah Dauber; Howard A Liddle; Jessica Samuolis
Journal:  Psychotherapy (Chic)       Date:  2004

4.  Changes in drug use are associated with health-related quality of life improvements among methadone maintenance patients with HIV/AIDS.

Authors:  Bach Xuan Tran; Arto Ohinmaa; Anh Thuy Duong; Nhan Thi Do; Long Thanh Nguyen; Quoc Cuong Nguyen; Steve Mills; Philip Jacobs; Stan Houston
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2011-07-06       Impact factor: 4.147

5.  Improving Factor Score Estimation Through the Use of Observed Background Characteristics.

Authors:  Patrick J Curran; Veronica Cole; Daniel J Bauer; Andrea M Hussong; Nisha Gottfredson
Journal:  Struct Equ Modeling       Date:  2016-09-09       Impact factor: 6.125

6.  Calorie restriction reduces psychological stress reactivity and its association with brain volume and microstructure in aged rhesus monkeys.

Authors:  Auriel A Willette; Christopher L Coe; Ricki J Colman; Barbara B Bendlin; Erik K Kastman; Aaron S Field; Andrew L Alexander; David B Allison; Richard H Weindruch; Sterling C Johnson
Journal:  Psychoneuroendocrinology       Date:  2011-11-25       Impact factor: 4.905

7.  An exploratory factor analysis of nutritional biomarkers associated with major depression in pregnancy.

Authors:  Lisa M Bodnar; Katherine L Wisner; James F Luther; Robert W Powers; Rhobert W Evans; Marcia J Gallaher; P K Newby
Journal:  Public Health Nutr       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 4.022

8.  Factors predicting the use of technology: findings from the Center for Research and Education on Aging and Technology Enhancement (CREATE).

Authors:  Sara J Czaja; Neil Charness; Arthur D Fisk; Christopher Hertzog; Sankaran N Nair; Wendy A Rogers; Joseph Sharit
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2006-06

9.  A Comparison of Factor Score Estimation Methods in the Presence of Missing Data: Reliability and an Application to Nicotine Dependence.

Authors:  Ryne Estabrook; Michael Neale
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2013-01-01       Impact factor: 5.923

10.  Multisystem physiological dysfunction is associated with depressive symptoms in a population-based sample of older adults.

Authors:  Roni W Kobrosly; Christopher L Seplaki; Deborah A Cory-Slechta; Jan Moynihan; Edwin van Wijngaarden
Journal:  Int J Geriatr Psychiatry       Date:  2012-09-07       Impact factor: 3.485

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.