比较用于评估二人组特征相似性的方法。

IF 2.7 4区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychologica Belgica Pub Date : 2024-06-25 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.5334/pb.1297
Chiara Carlier, Julian D Karch, Peter Kuppens, Eva Ceulemans
{"title":"比较用于评估二人组特征相似性的方法。","authors":"Chiara Carlier, Julian D Karch, Peter Kuppens, Eva Ceulemans","doi":"10.5334/pb.1297","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Profile similarity measures are used to quantify the similarity of two sets of ratings on multiple variables. Yet, it remains unclear how different measures are distinct or overlap and what type of information they precisely convey, making it unclear what measures are best applied under varying circumstances. With this study, we aim to provide clarity with respect to how existing measures interrelate and provide recommendations for their use by comparing a wide range of profile similarity measures. We have taken four steps. First, we reviewed 88 similarity measures by applying them to multiple cross-sectional and intensive longitudinal data sets on emotional experience and retained 43 useful profile similarity measures after eliminating duplicates, complements, or measures that were unsuitable for the intended purpose. Second, we have clustered these 43 measures into similarly behaving groups, and found three general clusters: one cluster with difference measures, one cluster with product measures that could be split into four more nuanced groups and one miscellaneous cluster that could be split into two more nuanced groups. Third, we have interpreted what unifies these groups and their subgroups and what information they convey based on theory and formulas. Last, based on our findings, we discuss recommendations with respect to the choice of measure, propose to avoid using the Pearson correlation, and suggest to center profile items when stereotypical patterns threaten to confound the computation of similarity.</p>","PeriodicalId":46662,"journal":{"name":"Psychologica Belgica","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11212783/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Comparison of Measures for Assessing Profile Similarity in Dyads.\",\"authors\":\"Chiara Carlier, Julian D Karch, Peter Kuppens, Eva Ceulemans\",\"doi\":\"10.5334/pb.1297\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Profile similarity measures are used to quantify the similarity of two sets of ratings on multiple variables. Yet, it remains unclear how different measures are distinct or overlap and what type of information they precisely convey, making it unclear what measures are best applied under varying circumstances. With this study, we aim to provide clarity with respect to how existing measures interrelate and provide recommendations for their use by comparing a wide range of profile similarity measures. We have taken four steps. First, we reviewed 88 similarity measures by applying them to multiple cross-sectional and intensive longitudinal data sets on emotional experience and retained 43 useful profile similarity measures after eliminating duplicates, complements, or measures that were unsuitable for the intended purpose. Second, we have clustered these 43 measures into similarly behaving groups, and found three general clusters: one cluster with difference measures, one cluster with product measures that could be split into four more nuanced groups and one miscellaneous cluster that could be split into two more nuanced groups. Third, we have interpreted what unifies these groups and their subgroups and what information they convey based on theory and formulas. Last, based on our findings, we discuss recommendations with respect to the choice of measure, propose to avoid using the Pearson correlation, and suggest to center profile items when stereotypical patterns threaten to confound the computation of similarity.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46662,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11212783/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychologica Belgica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1297\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychologica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5334/pb.1297","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

特征相似度测量用于量化多变量两组评分的相似性。然而,目前仍不清楚不同的测量方法是如何区分或重叠的,也不清楚它们能准确传达什么类型的信息,因此也不清楚在不同情况下什么测量方法最适用。通过这项研究,我们旨在明确现有测量方法之间的相互关系,并通过比较各种档案相似性测量方法为其使用提供建议。我们采取了四个步骤。首先,我们将 88 种相似性测量方法应用于情感体验的多个横截面数据集和密集纵向数据集,并在剔除重复、互补或不适合预期目的的测量方法后,保留了 43 种有用的特征相似性测量方法。其次,我们将这 43 个测量指标分为行为相似的组群,并发现了三个总体组群:一个是差异测量指标组群,一个是产品测量指标组群,可分为四个更细微的组群,一个是杂项组群,可分为两个更细微的组群。第三,我们根据理论和公式解释了这些群组及其子群组的统一之处以及它们所传达的信息。最后,根据我们的研究结果,我们讨论了有关测量方法选择的建议,提议避免使用皮尔逊相关性,并建议在刻板模式有可能混淆相似性计算时,将概况项目置于中心位置。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
A Comparison of Measures for Assessing Profile Similarity in Dyads.

Profile similarity measures are used to quantify the similarity of two sets of ratings on multiple variables. Yet, it remains unclear how different measures are distinct or overlap and what type of information they precisely convey, making it unclear what measures are best applied under varying circumstances. With this study, we aim to provide clarity with respect to how existing measures interrelate and provide recommendations for their use by comparing a wide range of profile similarity measures. We have taken four steps. First, we reviewed 88 similarity measures by applying them to multiple cross-sectional and intensive longitudinal data sets on emotional experience and retained 43 useful profile similarity measures after eliminating duplicates, complements, or measures that were unsuitable for the intended purpose. Second, we have clustered these 43 measures into similarly behaving groups, and found three general clusters: one cluster with difference measures, one cluster with product measures that could be split into four more nuanced groups and one miscellaneous cluster that could be split into two more nuanced groups. Third, we have interpreted what unifies these groups and their subgroups and what information they convey based on theory and formulas. Last, based on our findings, we discuss recommendations with respect to the choice of measure, propose to avoid using the Pearson correlation, and suggest to center profile items when stereotypical patterns threaten to confound the computation of similarity.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychologica Belgica
Psychologica Belgica PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
5.00%
发文量
22
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊最新文献
Exploration of the Links Between Psychosocial Well-being and Face Recognition Skills in a French-Speaking Sample. Relationship Between Neurodevelopmental Areas and Difficulties in Emotional-Behavioural Variables in Children With Typical Development Under 2 Years of Age: Sex Differences. Body Aware: Adolescents' and Young Adults' Lived Experiences of Body Awareness. The Influence of Changes in Daily Life Habits and Well-Being on Fatigue Level During COVID-19 Pandemic. A Comparison of Measures for Assessing Profile Similarity in Dyads.
×
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