The relationship between the phi coefficient and the unidimensionality index H: Improving psychological scaling from the ground up.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological methods Pub Date : 2025-02-10 DOI:10.1037/met0000736
Johannes Titz
{"title":"The relationship between the phi coefficient and the unidimensionality index H: Improving psychological scaling from the ground up.","authors":"Johannes Titz","doi":"10.1037/met0000736","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To study the dimensional structure of psychological phenomena, a precise definition of unidimensionality is essential. Most definitions of unidimensionality rely on factor analysis. However, the reliability of factor analysis depends on the input data, which primarily consists of Pearson correlations. A significant issue with Pearson correlations is that they are almost guaranteed to underestimate unidimensionality, rendering them unsuitable for evaluating the unidimensionality of a scale. This article formally demonstrates that the simple unidimensionality index <i>H</i> is always at least as high as, or higher than, the Pearson correlation for dichotomous and polytomous items (φ). Leveraging this inequality, a case is presented where five dichotomous items are perfectly unidimensional, yet factor analysis based on φ incorrectly suggests a two-dimensional solution. To illustrate that this issue extends beyond theoretical scenarios, an analysis of real data from a statistics exam (<i>N</i> = 133) is conducted, revealing the same problem. An in-depth analysis of the exam data shows that violations of unidimensionality are systematic and should not be dismissed as mere noise. Inconsistent answering patterns can indicate whether a participant blundered, cheated, or has conceptual misunderstandings, information typically overlooked by traditional scaling procedures based on correlations. The conclusion is that psychologists should consider unidimensionality not as a peripheral concern but as the foundation for any serious scaling attempt. The index <i>H</i> could play a crucial role in establishing this foundation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000736","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

To study the dimensional structure of psychological phenomena, a precise definition of unidimensionality is essential. Most definitions of unidimensionality rely on factor analysis. However, the reliability of factor analysis depends on the input data, which primarily consists of Pearson correlations. A significant issue with Pearson correlations is that they are almost guaranteed to underestimate unidimensionality, rendering them unsuitable for evaluating the unidimensionality of a scale. This article formally demonstrates that the simple unidimensionality index H is always at least as high as, or higher than, the Pearson correlation for dichotomous and polytomous items (φ). Leveraging this inequality, a case is presented where five dichotomous items are perfectly unidimensional, yet factor analysis based on φ incorrectly suggests a two-dimensional solution. To illustrate that this issue extends beyond theoretical scenarios, an analysis of real data from a statistics exam (N = 133) is conducted, revealing the same problem. An in-depth analysis of the exam data shows that violations of unidimensionality are systematic and should not be dismissed as mere noise. Inconsistent answering patterns can indicate whether a participant blundered, cheated, or has conceptual misunderstandings, information typically overlooked by traditional scaling procedures based on correlations. The conclusion is that psychologists should consider unidimensionality not as a peripheral concern but as the foundation for any serious scaling attempt. The index H could play a crucial role in establishing this foundation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
期刊最新文献
The relationship between the phi coefficient and the unidimensionality index H: Improving psychological scaling from the ground up. A peculiarity in psychological measurement practices. Missing not at random intensive longitudinal data with dynamic structural equation models. Reassessing the fitting propensity of factor models. Reliability in unidimensional ordinal data: A comparison of continuous and ordinal estimators.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1