scholarly journals Higher and Lower Order Factor Analyses of the Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire

Assessment ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (8) ◽  
pp. 1050-1061 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Kotelnikova ◽  
Thomas M. Olino ◽  
Daniel N. Klein ◽  
Sarah V. M. Mackrell ◽  
Elizabeth P. Hayden
Keyword(s):  
Middle Childhood ◽  
Lower Order ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Negative Affectivity ◽  
Admissible Solution ◽  
Parent Report ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Structure ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Order Factor

The Temperament in Middle Childhood Questionnaire (TMCQ) is a widely used parent-report measure of temperament. However, neither its lower nor higher order structures has been tested via a bottom-up, empirically based approach. We conducted higher and lower order exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) of the TMCQ in a large ( N = 654) sample of 9-year-olds. Item-level EFAs identified 92 items as suitable (i.e., with loadings ≥.40) for constructing lower order factors, only half of which resembled a TMCQ scale posited by the measure’s authors. Higher order EFAs of the lower order factors showed that a three-factor structure (Impulsivity/Negative Affectivity, Negative Affectivity, and Openness/Assertiveness) was the only admissible solution. Overall, many TMCQ items did not load well onto a lower order factor. In addition, only three factors, which did not show a clear resemblance to Rothbart’s four-factor model of temperament in middle childhood, were needed to account for the higher order structure of the TMCQ.

scholarly journals Higher- and lower-order factor analyses of the Children’s Behavior Questionnaire in early and middle childhood.

2016 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuliya Kotelnikova ◽  
Thomas M. Olino ◽  
Daniel N. Klein ◽  
Katie R. Kryski ◽  
Elizabeth P. Hayden
Keyword(s):  
Middle Childhood ◽  
Lower Order ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Children's Behavior ◽  
Order Factor

A Factor-Analytic Study Exploring the Factors of Co-Worker Cohesion

2010 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 42-53 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn von Treuer ◽  
Matthew Fuller-Tyszkiewicz ◽  
Barbara Atkinson
Keyword(s):  
Factor Structure ◽  
Lower Order ◽  
Conceptual Models ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Factor Analyses ◽  
Online Questionnaire ◽  
First Order ◽  
Order Factor ◽  
The Relationship

AbstractDespite the applied importance of cohesion within organisational settings, researchers have yet to reach consensus about the dimensionality of group cohesion, and therefore appropriate tools for its measurement. The way that cohesion has generally been conceptualised has changed over time, but the measures appear not to reflect the underlying theory. This deficiency has impeded attempts to explore the relationship between co-worker cohesion and group performance (Beal et al., 2003; Mullen & Copper, 1994). Given inconsistent findings from previous factor analyses of cohesion, the present study employed exploratory means to help clarify the factor structure of cohesion within the workplace. Potential participants were recruited via the researchers' social networks. This snowballing technique led to 236 participants completing the online questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis revealed four first-order factors of team commitment, friendliness, interpersonal conflict and communication that collectively accounted for 55.17% of the variance shared among the 75 cohesion items. Subsequently, a single higher-order factor was extracted which accounted for over half of the co-variation among the first order factors. This higher-order factor seems to reflect a general cohesion factor, as it was loaded by a diffuse collection of items, including those from the four lower-order factors as well as items that failed to load onto these lower-order factors. While there were similarities between these results and those of previous studies, the present factor structure did not map perfectly onto any of the existing conceptual models of cohesion. This finding highlights the need to incorporate some alternate factors that have previously been given little consideration.

Challenging the Multidimensional Conception of Perceived Person-Environment Fit

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Julian M. Etzel ◽  
Gabriel Nagy
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
University Students ◽  
Educational Outcomes ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Substantial Proportion ◽  
Unique Variance ◽  
First Order ◽  
Person Environment Fit ◽  
Order Factor

Abstract. In the current study, we examined the viability of a multidimensional conception of perceived person-environment (P-E) fit in higher education. We introduce an optimized 12-item measure that distinguishes between four content dimensions of perceived P-E fit: interest-contents (I-C) fit, needs-supplies (N-S) fit, demands-abilities (D-A) fit, and values-culture (V-C) fit. The central aim of our study was to examine whether the relationships between different P-E fit dimensions and educational outcomes can be accounted for by a higher-order factor that captures the shared features of the four fit dimensions. Relying on a large sample of university students in Germany, we found that students distinguish between the proposed fit dimensions. The respective first-order factors shared a substantial proportion of variance and conformed to a higher-order factor model. Using a newly developed factor extension procedure, we found that the relationships between the first-order factors and most outcomes were not fully accounted for by the higher-order factor. Rather, with the exception of V-C fit, all specific P-E fit factors that represent the first-order factors’ unique variance showed reliable and theoretically plausible relationships with different outcomes. These findings support the viability of a multidimensional conceptualization of P-E fit and the validity of our adapted instrument.

Speeded Paper-Pencil Sustained Attention and Mental Speed Tests

2008 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 205-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Krumm ◽  
Lothar Schmidt-Atzert ◽  
Kurt Michalczyk ◽  
Vanessa Danthiir
Keyword(s):  
Sustained Attention ◽  
Time Pressure ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Perceptual Speed ◽  
Speed Factor ◽  
Close Relationship ◽  
Task Processing ◽  
Order Factor

Mental speed (MS) and sustained attention (SA) are theoretically distinct constructs. However, tests of MS are very similar to SA tests that use time pressure as an impeding condition. The performance in such tasks largely relies on the participants’ speed of task processing (i.e., how quickly and correctly one can perform the simple cognitive tasks). The present study examined whether SA and MS are empirically the same or different constructs. To this end, 24 paper-pencil and computerized tests were administered to 199 students. SA turned out to be highly related to MS task classes: substitution and perceptual speed. Furthermore, SA showed a very close relationship with the paper-pencil MS factor. The correlation between SA and computerized speed was considerably lower but still high. In a higher-order general speed factor model, SA had the highest loading on the higher-order factor; the higher-order factor explained 88% of SA variance. It is argued that SA (as operationalized with tests using time pressure as an impeding condition) and MS cannot be differentiated, at the level of broad constructs. Implications for neuropsychological assessment and future research are discussed.

scholarly journals Measurement invariance of the distress tolerance scale among university students with and without a history of non-suicidal self-injury

PeerJ ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
pp. e10915
Author(s):  
Ashley Slabbert ◽  
Penelope Hasking ◽  
Danyelle Greene ◽  
Mark Boyes
Keyword(s):  
University Students ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Lower Order ◽  
Distress Tolerance ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Higher Order ◽  
Order Model ◽  
Self Injury ◽  
History Of ◽  
Order Four

Non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) is the intentional damage to one’s body tissue in the absence of suicidal intent. NSSI primarily serves an emotion regulation function, with individuals engaging in self-injury to escape intense or unwanted emotion. Low distress tolerance has been identified as a mechanism that underlies self-injury, and is commonly assessed using the self-report Distress Tolerance Scale. There are mixed findings regarding the factor structure of the Distress Tolerance Scale, with some researchers utilising a higher-order distress tolerance score (derived from the scores on the four lower-order subscales) and other researchers using the four subscales as unique predictors of psychological outcomes. Neither of these factor structures have been assessed among individuals with a history of self-injury. Of note, an inability to tolerate distress (thought to underlie NSSI) may limit an individual’s capacity to accurately observe and report specific thoughts and emotions experienced in a state of heightened distress, which may impact the validity of scores on the Distress Tolerance Scale. Therefore, measurement invariance should be established before attributing NSSI-related differences on the scale to true differences in distress tolerance. We compared the Distress Tolerance Scale higher-order model with the lower-order four factor model among university students with and without a history of NSSI. Our results indicated that the lower-order four factor model was a significantly better fit to the data than the higher-order model. We then tested the measurement invariance of this lower-order factor model among individuals with and without a history of NSSI, and established configural and full metric invariance, followed by partial scalar and full residual error invariance. These results suggest the four subscales of the Distress Tolerance Scale can be used to confidently discern NSSI-related differences in distress tolerance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document