When a Truly Positive Correlation Turns Negative: How Different Approaches to Model Hierarchically Structured Constructs Affect Estimated Correlations to Covariates

IF 3.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL European Journal of Personality Pub Date : 2021-10-04 DOI:10.1177/08902070211050170
Morten Moshagen
{"title":"When a Truly Positive Correlation Turns Negative: How Different Approaches to Model Hierarchically Structured Constructs Affect Estimated Correlations to Covariates","authors":"Morten Moshagen","doi":"10.1177/08902070211050170","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many constructs in personality psychology assume a hierarchical structure positing a general factor along with several narrower subdimensions or facets. Different approaches are commonly used to model such a structure, including higher-order factor models, bifactor models, single-factor models based on the responses on the observed items, and single-factor models based on parcels computed from the mean observed scores on the subdimensions. The present article investigates the consequences of adopting a certain approach for the validity of conclusions derived from the thereby obtained correlation of the most general factor to a covariate. Any of the considered approaches may closely approximate the true correlation when its underlying assumptions are met or when model misspecifications only pertain to the measurement model of the hierarchical construct. However, when misspecifications involve nonmodeled covariances between parts of the hierarchically structured construct and the covariate, higher-order models, single-factor representations, and facet-parcel approaches can yield severely biased estimates sometimes grossly misrepresenting the true correlation and even incurring sign changes. In contrast, a bifactor approach proved to be most robust and to provide rather unbiased results under all conditions. The implications are discussed and recommendations are provided.","PeriodicalId":51376,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Personality","volume":"37 1","pages":"95 - 112"},"PeriodicalIF":3.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Personality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070211050170","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10

Abstract

Many constructs in personality psychology assume a hierarchical structure positing a general factor along with several narrower subdimensions or facets. Different approaches are commonly used to model such a structure, including higher-order factor models, bifactor models, single-factor models based on the responses on the observed items, and single-factor models based on parcels computed from the mean observed scores on the subdimensions. The present article investigates the consequences of adopting a certain approach for the validity of conclusions derived from the thereby obtained correlation of the most general factor to a covariate. Any of the considered approaches may closely approximate the true correlation when its underlying assumptions are met or when model misspecifications only pertain to the measurement model of the hierarchical construct. However, when misspecifications involve nonmodeled covariances between parts of the hierarchically structured construct and the covariate, higher-order models, single-factor representations, and facet-parcel approaches can yield severely biased estimates sometimes grossly misrepresenting the true correlation and even incurring sign changes. In contrast, a bifactor approach proved to be most robust and to provide rather unbiased results under all conditions. The implications are discussed and recommendations are provided.
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
当一个真正的正相关变为负相关:不同的方法如何模型层次结构结构影响估计相关的协变量
人格心理学中的许多构念假设了一种层次结构,假设了一个一般因素以及几个较窄的子维度或方面。通常使用不同的方法来对这种结构进行建模,包括高阶因子模型、双因子模型、基于对观察项目的反应的单因素模型,以及基于从子维度上的平均观察分数计算的包裹的单因素模型。本文研究了采用某种方法对由此获得的最一般因素与协变量的相关性得出的结论的有效性的后果。当其基本假设得到满足时,或者当模型错误说明仅与层次结构的度量模型有关时,所考虑的任何方法都可能非常接近真实的相关性。然而,当错误说明涉及到层次结构结构和协变量部分之间的非建模协方差时,高阶模型、单因素表示和面包方法会产生严重的偏差估计,有时会严重地歪曲真实的相关性,甚至导致符号变化。相比之下,双因素方法被证明是最稳健的,并在所有条件下提供相当公正的结果。本文讨论了其影响并提出了建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of Personality
European Journal of Personality PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-
CiteScore
11.90
自引率
8.50%
发文量
48
期刊介绍: It is intended that the journal reflects all areas of current personality psychology. The Journal emphasizes (1) human individuality as manifested in cognitive processes, emotional and motivational functioning, and their physiological and genetic underpinnings, and personal ways of interacting with the environment, (2) individual differences in personality structure and dynamics, (3) studies of intelligence and interindividual differences in cognitive functioning, and (4) development of personality differences as revealed by cross-sectional and longitudinal studies.
期刊最新文献
From theory to research: Interpretational guidelines, statistical guidance, and a shiny app for the model of excellencism and perfectionism The complexity of the pursuit of happiness is associated with the success of well-being related behaviors in everyday life Personality is (so much) more than just self-reported Big Five traits My willpower belief and yours: Investigating dyadic associations between willpower beliefs, social support, and relationship satisfaction in couples Between- and within-person longitudinal associations between personality traits and social support across relationships during older adulthood
×
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