Factor-Analytic Scales of a Normative Form of the EPPS

A focus on the study of development and other kinds of changes in the whole individual has been one of the hallmarks of research by Magnusson and his colleagues. A number of different approaches emphasize this individual focus in their respective ways. This presentation focuses on intraindividual variability stemming from Cattell's P-technique factor analytic proposals, making several refinements to make it more tractable from a research design standpoint and more appropriate from a statistical analysis perspective. The associated methods make it possible to study intraindividual variability both within and between individuals. An empirical example is used to illustrate the procedure.

Download Full-text

Psychometric Definition of Rorschach Determinant Component Structure

European Journal of Psychological Assessment ◽

10.1027/1015-5759.14.2.116 ◽

1998 ◽

Vol 14 (2) ◽

pp. 116-123 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Raymond M. Costello

Keyword(s):

Lower Order ◽

Three Dimensions ◽

Comprehensive System ◽

Empirical Examination ◽

Component Structure ◽

Exner's Comprehensive System ◽

Factor Analytic ◽

Confirmatory Factor ◽

Components Analysis ◽

Definition Of

This is an empirical examination of Experienced Stimulation (es) and Experience Actual (EA) from Exner's Comprehensive System (CS) for Rorschach's Test, spurred by Kleiger's theoretical critique. Principal components analysis, Cronbach's α, and inter-item correlational analyses were used to test whether 13 determinants used to code Rorschach responses (M, FM, m, CF+C, YF+Y, C'F+C', TF+T, VF+V, FC, FC', FV, FY, FT) are best represented as a one, two, or more-dimensional construct. The 13 determinants appear to reflect three dimensions, a “lower order” sensori-motor dimension (m + CF+C + YF+Y + C'F+C' + TF+T + VF+V) with a suggested label of Modified Experienced Stimulation (MES), a “higher order” sensori-motor dimension (FM + FV + FY + FT) with a suggested label of Modified Experience Potential (MEP), and a third sensori-motor dimension (M+FC+FC') for which the label of Modified Experience Actual (MEA) is suggested. These findings are consistent with Kleiger's arguments and could lead to a refinement of CS constructs by aggregating determinants along lines more theoretically congruous and more internally consistent. A RAMONA model with parameters specified was presented for replication attempts which use confirmatory factor analytic techniques.

Download Full-text

A Confirmatory Factor Analytic Study of Anxiety, Fear, and Behavioral Inhibition System Measures

Journal of Individual Differences ◽

10.1027/1614-0001.28.4.179 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 28 (4) ◽

pp. 179-187 ◽

Cited By ~ 33

Author(s):

Andrew J. Cooper ◽

Adam M. Perkins ◽

Philip J. Corr

Keyword(s):

Trait Anxiety ◽

Behavioral Inhibition ◽

Discriminant Validity ◽

Self Report ◽

Behavioral Inhibition System ◽

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory ◽

Factor Analytic ◽

Confirmatory Factor ◽

Structural Invariance ◽

Fear And Anxiety

Abstract. Recent revisions to the reinforcement sensitivity theory (RST) of personality have highlighted the distinction between the emotions of fear and anxiety. These revisions have substantial implications for self-report measurement; in particular, they raise the question of whether separate traits of fear and anxiety exist and, if so, their interrelationship. To address this question, the current study used confirmatory factor analytic procedures to examine the convergent and discriminant validity of measures of trait anxiety, fear, and the behavioral inhibition system (BIS). We also examined measurement and structural invariance across gender in 167 males and 173 females who completed the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI), the Carver and White BIS Scale, and the Fear Survey Schedule (FSS). The findings suggested that trait anxiety and the BIS scale are relatively distinct from Tissue Damage Fear (FSS). Further, the final model showed measurement and structural invariance across gender. The implications of the results for future self-report assessment in RST research are discussed.

Download Full-text