A Common Factor Structure of Bender Gestalt Protocols of Young Children

1976 ◽  
Vol 42 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1039-1048 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard J. Hofmann

The common factor structure of the Bender is defined for 9-yr.-old children according to the Koppitz scoring procedure. Utilizing a new robust factor analytic interpretation strategy, it is demonstrated that the common factors correspond closely to the general error categories defined by Koppitz. A cross-validation study is suggested.

2007 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Johann M Schepers

The principal objective of the study was the construction and evaluation of an attention questionnaire. A corollary of the study was to determine the common factors between the Attention Questionnaire (AQ) and the Locus of Control Inventory (LCI). The AQ and the LCI (1999) were applied jointly to a sample of 1577 first-year university students. To start with the AQ was subjected to a principal factor analysis. It yielded three factors which were identified as Concentration Ability, Arousal and Distractibility. Three scales were formed which yielded reliabilities of 0,886, 0,757 and 0,863 respectively. Multiple battery factor analysis was used to establish the common factor structure of the two instruments. Autonomy and Internal Control were strongly related to Concentration Ability.


2008 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 670-677 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amaia Lasa Aristu ◽  
Francisco Pablo Holgado Tello ◽  
Miguel Ángel Carrasco Ortiz ◽  
María Victoria del Barrio Gándara

The present study examined the structure of Bryant's Empathy Index (BEI) using different samples for conducting exploratory and confirmatory analyses. The BEI was administered to a sample of 2,714 children (mean age 11.12, SD = 1.59). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses showed a three-factor structure: Feelings of Sadness, Understanding Feelings and Tearful Reaction. The results revealed both the multidimensionality of the instrument and appropriate fit indices for the model proposed. Although these results were very similar to those reported in other studies with a Spanish population, the analyses were conducted in a more robust way: with a larger sample and using polychoric correlations and cross validation estimation.


Author(s):  
Marco Lippi

High-Dimensional Dynamic Factor Models have their origin in macroeconomics, precisely in empirical research on Business Cycles. The central idea, going back to the work of Burns and Mitchell in the years 1940, is that the fluctuations of all the macro and sectoral variables in the economy are driven by a “reference cycle,” that is, a one-dimensional latent cause of variation. After a fairly long process of generalization and formalization, the literature settled at the beginning of the year 2000 on a model in which (1) both n the number of variables in the dataset and T, the number of observations for each variable, may be large, and (2) all the variables in the dataset depend dynamically on a fixed independent of n, a number of “common factors,” plus variable-specific, usually called “idiosyncratic,” components. The structure of the model can be exemplified as follows: xit=αiut+βiut−1+ξit,i=1,…,n,t=1,…,T,(*) where the observable variables xit are driven by the white noise ut, which is common to all the variables, the common factor, and by the idiosyncratic component ξit. The common factor ut is orthogonal to the idiosyncratic components ξit, the idiosyncratic components are mutually orthogonal (or weakly correlated). Lastly, the variations of the common factor ut affect the variable xit dynamically, that is through the lag polynomial αi+βiL. Asymptotic results for High-Dimensional Factor Models, particularly consistency of estimators of the common factors, are obtained for both n and T tending to infinity. Model (∗), generalized to allow for more than one common factor and a rich dynamic loading of the factors, has been studied in a fairly vast literature, with many applications based on macroeconomic datasets: (a) forecasting of inflation, industrial production, and unemployment; (b) structural macroeconomic analysis; and (c) construction of indicators of the Business Cycle. This literature can be broadly classified as belonging to the time- or the frequency-domain approach. The works based on the second are the subject of the present chapter. We start with a brief description of early work on Dynamic Factor Models. Formal definitions and the main Representation Theorem follow. The latter determines the number of common factors in the model by means of the spectral density matrix of the vector (x1tx2t⋯xnt). Dynamic principal components, based on the spectral density of the x’s, are then used to construct estimators of the common factors. These results, obtained in early 2000, are compared to the literature based on the time-domain approach, in which the covariance matrix of the x’s and its (static) principal components are used instead of the spectral density and dynamic principal components. Dynamic principal components produce two-sided estimators, which are good within the sample but unfit for forecasting. The estimators based on the time-domain approach are simple and one-sided. However, they require the restriction of finite dimension for the space spanned by the factors. Recent papers have constructed one-sided estimators based on the frequency-domain method for the unrestricted model. These results exploit results on stochastic processes of dimension n that are driven by a q-dimensional white noise, with q<n, that is, singular vector stochastic processes. The main features of this literature are described with some detail. Lastly, we report and comment the results of an empirical paper, the last in a long list, comparing predictions obtained with time- and frequency-domain methods. The paper uses a large monthly U.S. dataset including the Great Moderation and the Great Recession.


1987 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 208-222 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. W. J. Granger

Many observed macrovariables are simple aggregates over a large number of microunits. It is pointed out that the generating process of the macrovariables is largely determined by the common factors in the generating mechanisms of the microvariables, even though these factors may be very unimportant at the microlevel. It follows that macrorelationships are simpler than the complete microrelationships, but that empirical investigations of microrelationships may not catch those components, containing common factors, which will determine the macrorelationship. It is also shown that an aggregate expectation or forecast is simply the common factor component of the individual agents expectations.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 759-773 ◽  
Author(s):  
Riet van Bork ◽  
Sacha Epskamp ◽  
Mijke Rhemtulla ◽  
Denny Borsboom ◽  
Han L. J. van der Maas

Recent research has suggested that a range of psychological disorders may stem from a single underlying common factor, which has been dubbed the p-factor. This finding may spur a line of research in psychopathology very similar to the history of factor modeling in intelligence and, more recently, personality research, in which similar general factors have been proposed. We point out some of the risks of modeling and interpreting general factors, derived from the fields of intelligence and personality research. We argue that: (a) factor-analytic resolution, i.e., convergence of the literature on a particular factor structure, should not be expected in the presence of multiple highly similar models; and (b) the true underlying model may not be a factor model at all, because alternative explanations can account for the correlational structure of psychopathology.


Entropy ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 140
Author(s):  
Nobuoki Eshima ◽  
Claudio Giovanni Borroni ◽  
Minoru Tabata ◽  
Takeshi Kurosawa

This paper proposes a method for deriving interpretable common factors based on canonical correlation analysis applied to the vectors of common factors and manifest variables in the factor analysis model. First, an entropy-based method for measuring factor contributions is reviewed. Second, the entropy-based contribution measure of the common-factor vector is decomposed into those of canonical common factors, and it is also shown that the importance order of factors is that of their canonical correlation coefficients. Third, the method is applied to derive interpretable common factors. Numerical examples are provided to demonstrate the usefulness of the present approach.


2018 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 705-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabian T.C. Schmidt ◽  
Gabriel Nagy ◽  
Johanna Fleckenstein ◽  
Jens Möller ◽  
Jan Retelsdorf

The constructs grit and conscientiousness are closely connected. However, this relationship has not been analysed while accounting for the complex structure of conscientiousness and the multifaceted conception of grit (perseverance of effort; consistency of interest). In this study, we analysed the connection while considering the hierarchical structure of conscientiousness, differentiating between a superordinate factor, a first–level common factor (industriousness), and lower level unique factors. Drawing on two samples ( N = 413, Mage = 15.29, and N = 530, Mage = 31.75), we applied an extension procedure for confirmatory factor analysis that enables a simultaneous investigation of the relationships on all levels. The perseverance facet of grit was tightly aligned to the common factors (95% shared variance) and was strongly related to the industriousness factor. Consistency shared less variance with the common factors of conscientiousness (53%), but it was additionally correlated with the self–discipline facet. The results for the global grit scale were most similar to the results for perseverance. Grit appears to be a construct that combines the superordinate and industrious aspects of conscientiousness and shares the unique aspect of the self–discipline facet; this suggests that grit and its facets can be fully integrated into the hierarchical structure of conscientiousness.


2021 ◽  
pp. medethics-2020-107138
Author(s):  
Garson Leder

In ‘Psychotherapy, Placebos and Informed Consent’, I argued that the minimal standard for informed consent in psychotherapy requires that ‘patients understand that there is currently no consensus about the mechanisms of change in psychotherapy, and that the therapy on offer…is based on disputed theoretical foundations’, and that the dissemination of this information is compatible with the delivery of many theory-specific forms of psychotherapy (including cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT)). I also argued that the minimal requirements for informed consent do not include information about the role of therapeutic common factors in healing (eg, expectancy effects and therapist effects); practitioners may discuss the common factors with patients, but they are not part of the ‘core set’ of information necessary to obtain informed consent.In a recent reply, Charlotte Blease criticises these two arguments by claiming they are not supported by empirical findings about the therapeutic common factors. Blease’s response is based on serious misunderstandings of both CBT and what the common factor findings actually find. Nevertheless, addressing the reasons for these misunderstandings is instructive and gives us an opportunity to clarify what, exactly, needs to be explained to patients in order to obtain informed consent for psychotherapy.


PLoS ONE ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. e0173295
Author(s):  
Francisco Leal-Soto ◽  
Rodrigo Ferrer-Urbina

1971 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 1015-1019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad S. Chissom ◽  
Jerry R. Thomas

The purpose was comparison of the factor structure of the Frostig DTVP based on current research reporting intercorrelations of scores on the 5 Frostig subtests. Ss in the 11 studies examined were children from preschool through the second grade. The intercorrelation matrices from the studies were analyzed using a principal components analysis with orthogonal rotation as a common factor analytic procedure. Results indicated a single-factor structure described the 5 Frostig subtests in 9 of the 11 studies examined with that single factor accounting for 50 to 60% of the total variation. It is possible that one or more additional specific factors may exist but the analyses in this study did not identify more than the single factor.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document