Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity under Six Methods of Comparison

In studies of test bias evaluating the cross-group similarity of factor analytic results, a variety of methods of measuring factorial similarity have been employed. Six of these methods were compared with regard to outcome based on two large data sets, one for an intelligence test and the other for...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Educational and psychological measurement 1983-09, Vol.43 (3), p.723-728
Hauptverfasser: Reynolds, Cecil R., Harding, Richard E.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 728
container_issue 3
container_start_page 723
container_title Educational and psychological measurement
container_volume 43
creator Reynolds, Cecil R.
Harding, Richard E.
description In studies of test bias evaluating the cross-group similarity of factor analytic results, a variety of methods of measuring factorial similarity have been employed. Six of these methods were compared with regard to outcome based on two large data sets, one for an intelligence test and the other for a personality test. All indexes yielded comparable results regardless of whether factors had been derived from subtests of the intelligence test or items of the personality scale. Conclusions would have remained constant in each study regardless of the index employed. When used to compare factors determined at random, all indexes yielded comparable results leading to a conclusion of dissimilarity, though the values of the salient variable similarity index were uncomfortably high.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/001316448304300305
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1290213211</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_001316448304300305</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1290213211</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1605-2f0d3345401e4423068cd9f07c2e3dba4159a11ee69fbce2653180c13bcee8f43</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFPwzAMhSMEEmPwBzhF4lxmJ2nXHtHEAGloh40ThypL3dGpbUrSCvbvyRgHJIQvT7a_9yyZsWuEW8TpdAKAEhOlUglKAkiIT9gI41hEMk3TUzY6ANGBOGcX3u8glEIcsdfl0BvbEK9avv6wfKHdlvhKN10dpB-Kijy3JZ9r01tX6Zqvqqaqtav6PR_aglwYfPJn6t9s8U3ObNOFtbftJTsrde3p6kfH7GV-v549Rovlw9PsbhEZTCCORAmFlCpWgKSUkJCkpshKmBpBsthohXGmEYmSrNwYEkksMQWDMjSUlkqO2c0xt3P2fSDf5zs7uDaczFFkIFAKxECJI2Wc9d5RmXeuarTb5wj54Yn53ycG0-Ro8npLv2L_d3wBOqZwTg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1290213211</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity under Six Methods of Comparison</title><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Reynolds, Cecil R. ; Harding, Richard E.</creator><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, Cecil R. ; Harding, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><description>In studies of test bias evaluating the cross-group similarity of factor analytic results, a variety of methods of measuring factorial similarity have been employed. Six of these methods were compared with regard to outcome based on two large data sets, one for an intelligence test and the other for a personality test. All indexes yielded comparable results regardless of whether factors had been derived from subtests of the intelligence test or items of the personality scale. Conclusions would have remained constant in each study regardless of the index employed. When used to compare factors determined at random, all indexes yielded comparable results leading to a conclusion of dissimilarity, though the values of the salient variable similarity index were uncomfortably high.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0013-1644</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-3888</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/001316448304300305</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><ispartof>Educational and psychological measurement, 1983-09, Vol.43 (3), p.723-728</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1605-2f0d3345401e4423068cd9f07c2e3dba4159a11ee69fbce2653180c13bcee8f43</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1605-2f0d3345401e4423068cd9f07c2e3dba4159a11ee69fbce2653180c13bcee8f43</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/001316448304300305$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001316448304300305$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27846,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, Cecil R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harding, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><title>Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity under Six Methods of Comparison</title><title>Educational and psychological measurement</title><description>In studies of test bias evaluating the cross-group similarity of factor analytic results, a variety of methods of measuring factorial similarity have been employed. Six of these methods were compared with regard to outcome based on two large data sets, one for an intelligence test and the other for a personality test. All indexes yielded comparable results regardless of whether factors had been derived from subtests of the intelligence test or items of the personality scale. Conclusions would have remained constant in each study regardless of the index employed. When used to compare factors determined at random, all indexes yielded comparable results leading to a conclusion of dissimilarity, though the values of the salient variable similarity index were uncomfortably high.</description><issn>0013-1644</issn><issn>1552-3888</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1983</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEFPwzAMhSMEEmPwBzhF4lxmJ2nXHtHEAGloh40ThypL3dGpbUrSCvbvyRgHJIQvT7a_9yyZsWuEW8TpdAKAEhOlUglKAkiIT9gI41hEMk3TUzY6ANGBOGcX3u8glEIcsdfl0BvbEK9avv6wfKHdlvhKN10dpB-Kijy3JZ9r01tX6Zqvqqaqtav6PR_aglwYfPJn6t9s8U3ObNOFtbftJTsrde3p6kfH7GV-v549Rovlw9PsbhEZTCCORAmFlCpWgKSUkJCkpshKmBpBsthohXGmEYmSrNwYEkksMQWDMjSUlkqO2c0xt3P2fSDf5zs7uDaczFFkIFAKxECJI2Wc9d5RmXeuarTb5wj54Yn53ycG0-Ro8npLv2L_d3wBOqZwTg</recordid><startdate>198309</startdate><enddate>198309</enddate><creator>Reynolds, Cecil R.</creator><creator>Harding, Richard E.</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Educational and Psychological Measurement, etc</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope></search><sort><creationdate>198309</creationdate><title>Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity under Six Methods of Comparison</title><author>Reynolds, Cecil R. ; Harding, Richard E.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1605-2f0d3345401e4423068cd9f07c2e3dba4159a11ee69fbce2653180c13bcee8f43</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1983</creationdate><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Reynolds, Cecil R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Harding, Richard E.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><jtitle>Educational and psychological measurement</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Reynolds, Cecil R.</au><au>Harding, Richard E.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity under Six Methods of Comparison</atitle><jtitle>Educational and psychological measurement</jtitle><date>1983-09</date><risdate>1983</risdate><volume>43</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>723</spage><epage>728</epage><pages>723-728</pages><issn>0013-1644</issn><eissn>1552-3888</eissn><abstract>In studies of test bias evaluating the cross-group similarity of factor analytic results, a variety of methods of measuring factorial similarity have been employed. Six of these methods were compared with regard to outcome based on two large data sets, one for an intelligence test and the other for a personality test. All indexes yielded comparable results regardless of whether factors had been derived from subtests of the intelligence test or items of the personality scale. Conclusions would have remained constant in each study regardless of the index employed. When used to compare factors determined at random, all indexes yielded comparable results leading to a conclusion of dissimilarity, though the values of the salient variable similarity index were uncomfortably high.</abstract><cop>Thousand Oaks, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><doi>10.1177/001316448304300305</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0013-1644
ispartof Educational and psychological measurement, 1983-09, Vol.43 (3), p.723-728
issn 0013-1644
1552-3888
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1290213211
source SAGE Complete; Periodicals Index Online
title Outcome in Two Large Sample Studies of Factorial Similarity under Six Methods of Comparison
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T08%3A31%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Outcome%20in%20Two%20Large%20Sample%20Studies%20of%20Factorial%20Similarity%20under%20Six%20Methods%20of%20Comparison&rft.jtitle=Educational%20and%20psychological%20measurement&rft.au=Reynolds,%20Cecil%20R.&rft.date=1983-09&rft.volume=43&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=723&rft.epage=728&rft.pages=723-728&rft.issn=0013-1644&rft.eissn=1552-3888&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/001316448304300305&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1290213211%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1290213211&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_sage_id=10.1177_001316448304300305&rfr_iscdi=true