The number of available factor analytic techniques has been increasing in the last decades. However, the lack of clear guidelines and exhaustive comparison studies between the techniques might hinder that these valuable methodological advances make their way to applied research. The present paper evaluates the performance of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), CFA with sequential model modification using modification indices and the Saris procedure, exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with different rotation procedures (Geomin, target, and objectively refined target matrix), Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM), and a new set of procedures that, after fitting an unrestrictive model (i.e., EFA, BSEM), identify and retain only the relevant loadings to provide a parsimonious CFA solution (ECFA, BCFA). By means of an exhaustive Monte Carlo simulation study and a real data illustration, it is shown that CFA and BSEM are overly stiff and, consequently, do not appropriately recover the structure of slightly misspecified models. EFA usually provides the most accurate parameter estimates, although the rotation procedure choice is of major importance, especially depending on whether the latent factors are correlated or not. Finally, ECFA might be a sound option whenever an a priori structure cannot be hypothesized and the latent factors are correlated. Moreover, it is shown that the pattern of the results of a factor analytic technique can be somehow predicted based on its positioning in the confirmatory-exploratory continuum. Applied recommendations are given for the selection of the most appropriate technique under different representative scenarios by means of a detailed flowchart. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs) are latent class multidimensional statistical models that help classify people accurately by using a set of discrete latent variables, commonly referred to as attributes. These models require a Q-matrix that indicates the attributes involved in each item. A potential problem is that the Q-matrix construction process, typically performed by domain experts, is subjective in nature. This might lead to the existence of Q-matrix misspecifications that can lead to inaccurate classifications. For this reason, several empirical Q-matrix validation methods have been developed in the recent years. de la Torre and Chiu proposed one of the most popular methods, based on a discrimination index. However, some questions related to the usefulness of the method with empirical data remained open due the restricted number of conditions examined, and the use of a unique cutoff point (EPS) regardless of the data conditions. This article includes two simulation studies to test this validation method under a wider range of conditions, with the purpose of providing it with a higher generalization, and to empirically determine the most suitable EPS considering the data conditions. Results show a good overall performance of the method, the relevance of the different studied factors, and that using a single indiscriminate EPS is not acceptable. Specific guidelines for selecting an appropriate EPS are provided in the discussion.

In the context of cognitive diagnosis models (CDMs), a Q-matrix reflects the correspondence between attributes and items. The Q-matrix construction process is typically subjective in nature, which may lead to misspecifications. All this can negatively affect the attribute classification accuracy. In response, several methods of empirical Q-matrix validation have been developed. The general discrimination index (GDI) method has some relevant advantages such as the possibility of being applied to several CDMs. However, the estimation of the GDI relies on the estimation of the latent group sizes and success probabilities, which is made with the original (possibly misspecified) Q-matrix. This can be a problem, especially in those situations in which there is a great uncertainty about the Q-matrix specification. To address this, the present study investigates the iterative application of the GDI method, where only one item is modified at each step of the iterative procedure, and the required cutoff is updated considering the new parameter estimates. A simulation study was conducted to test the performance of the new procedure. Results showed that the performance of the GDI method improved when the application was iterative at the item level and an appropriate cutoff point was used. This was most notable when the original Q-matrix misspecification rate was high, where the proposed procedure performed better 96.5% of the times. The results are illustrated using Tatsuoka’s fraction-subtraction data set.

“Sexting” is generally defined as the exchange of sexual media content via the internet. However, research on this topic has underscored the need to seek greater consensus when considering different conceptual elements that make up this definition. The aim of this study was to develop and validate an instrument for measuring sexting among adolescents, in order to cover a gap identified in the previous literature. The Adolescent Sexting Scale (A-SextS for short) was developed for validation on a sample of 579 Spanish secondary school pupils between the ages of 11 and 18. Evidence for face, content, concurrent, and criterion validity were assessed. A comprehensive set of 64 items, covering six defining characteristics of sexting (e.g., actions, recipient, media format, degree of sexual explicitness), was constructed after conducting an extensive literature review, two discussion groups, and a pilot study. Sexting prevalence rates measured by A-SextS were mostly concurrent with those found in previous studies. A-SextS subscales produced statistically significant positive associations with pornography consumption and physical sexual intercourse. The study shows that A-SextS can be an integrating instrument that facilitates a rigorous and comprehensive assessment of adolescent sexting experiences, as well as the formulation of an operationalized definition of the practice of sexting.

Decisions on how to calibrate an item bank might have major implications in the subsequent performance of the adaptive algorithms. One of these decisions is model selection, which can become problematic in the context of cognitive diagnosis computerized adaptive testing, given the wide range of models available. This article aims to determine whether model selection indices can be used to improve the performance of adaptive tests. Three factors were considered in a simulation study, that is, calibration sample size, Q-matrix complexity, and item bank length. Results based on the true item parameters, and general and single reduced model estimates were compared to those of the combination of appropriate models. The results indicate that fitting a single reduced model or a general model will not generally provide optimal results. Results based on the combination of models selected by the fit index were always closer to those obtained with the true item parameters. The implications for practical settings include an improvement in terms of classification accuracy and, consequently, testing time, and a more balanced use of the item bank. An R package was developed, named cdcatR, to facilitate adaptive applications in this context.