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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Educational and psychological measurement 1983-09, Vol.43 (3), p.723-728 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & 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 |