<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Bifactor on </title>
    <link>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/tags/bifactor/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Bifactor on </description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2022 17:26:02 +0000</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://ulrich-schroeders.de/tags/bifactor/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>Bee Swarm Optimization (BSO)</title>
      <link>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/2022/12/BSO/</link>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 Dec 2022 17:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/2022/12/BSO/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&#34;https://ulrich-schroeders.de/img/bee_hive_hu6641599444719390445.webp&#34;&#xA;     alt=&#34;&#34; class=&#34;article-image&#34; width=&#34;1024&#34; height=&#34;576&#34; loading=&#34;lazy&#34; decoding=&#34;async&#34; style=&#34;border-radius: 5px&#34;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&amp;ldquo;Bees are amazing, little creatures&amp;rdquo; (&lt;a href=&#34;https://collections.plos.org/open-highlights-bees&#34;&gt;Richardson, 2017&lt;/a&gt;) &amp;ndash; I agree. Bees have fascinated people since time immemorial, and yet even today there are still novel and fascinating discoveries (see the &lt;a href=&#34;https://collections.plos.org/open-highlights-bees&#34;&gt;PLOS collection&lt;/a&gt; for some mind-boggling facts). Although bees as an insect species might seem as the prime example of state-building insects, highly social forms of community are the exception among bees. The large majority of all bee species are solitary bees or cuckoo bees that do not form insect states.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Science self-concept – More than the sum of its parts?</title>
      <link>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/2020/03/science-self-concepts/</link>
      <pubDate>Sat, 21 Mar 2020 22:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/2020/03/science-self-concepts/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;The article &amp;ldquo;Science Self-Concept – More Than the Sum of its Parts?&amp;rdquo; has now been published in &amp;ldquo;The Journal of Experimental Education&amp;rdquo; (btw in existence since 1932). The first 50 &lt;a href=&#34;https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/TUMRQUZW6WNBCKNGPU5H/full?target=10.1080/00220973.2020.1740967&#34;&gt;copies are free&lt;/a&gt;, in case you are interested.&lt;/p&gt;&#xA;&lt;blockquote class=&#34;twitter-tweet&#34;&gt;&lt;p lang=&#34;en&#34; dir=&#34;ltr&#34;&gt;My first preprint. 😀Is a general science self-concept equivalent to an aggregated subject-specific science concept? It&amp;#39;s about different modeling approaches, measurement invariance and concepts of equivalence. Check it out! Comment if you like: &lt;a href=&#34;https://t.co/3STwiTV0Up&#34;&gt;https://t.co/3STwiTV0Up&lt;/a&gt; &lt;a href=&#34;https://t.co/SfbYxuHfse&#34;&gt;pic.twitter.com/SfbYxuHfse&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&amp;mdash; Ulrich Schroeders (@Navajoc0d3) &lt;a href=&#34;https://twitter.com/Navajoc0d3/status/1192091948657631232?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw&#34;&gt;November 6, 2019&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&#xA;&lt;script async src=&#34;https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js&#34; charset=&#34;utf-8&#34;&gt;&lt;/script&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;&lt;p&gt;In comparison to the preprint version, some substantial changes have been made to the final version of the manuscript, especially in the research questions and in the presentation of the results. Due to word restriction, we also removed a section from the discussion, in which we summarized differences and commonalities of the bifactor vs. higher-order models. We also speculated about why the type of modeling may also depend on the study&amp;rsquo;s subject, that is, on conceptual differences in intelligence vs. self-concept research. The argumentation may be a bit wonky, but at least I find the idea so persuasive that I want to reproduce it in the following. If you have any comments, please feel free to drop me a line.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale - A drosophila melanogaster of psychological assessment</title>
      <link>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/2018/01/rses/</link>
      <pubDate>Tue, 09 Jan 2018 12:26:02 +0000</pubDate>
      <guid>https://ulrich-schroeders.de/2018/01/rses/</guid>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;&#xA;&lt;img src=&#34;https://ulrich-schroeders.de/img/coffee_begin_hu15074355733369108704.webp&#34;&#xA;     alt=&#34;&#34; class=&#34;article-image&#34; width=&#34;1024&#34; height=&#34;408&#34; loading=&#34;lazy&#34; decoding=&#34;async&#34; style=&#34;border-radius: 5px&#34;&gt;&#xA;&#xA;&#xA;I had the great chance to co-author two recent publications of &lt;a href=&#34;http://timo.gnambs.at/&#34;&gt;Timo Gnambs&lt;/a&gt;, both dealing with the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES; Rosenberg, 1965). As a reminder, the RSES is a popular ten item self-report instrument measuring a respondent&amp;rsquo;s global self-worth and self-respect. But basically both papers are not about the RSES &lt;em&gt;per se&lt;/em&gt;, rather they are applications of two recently introduced powerful and flexible extensions of the Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) Framework: &lt;em&gt;Meta-Analytic Structural Equation Modeling&lt;/em&gt; (MASEM) and &lt;em&gt;Local Weighted Structural Equation Modeling&lt;/em&gt; (LSEM), which will be described in more detail later on.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
