Analysis of the connotative meanings of a variety of human values as expressed by American college students.

Improving Construct Measurement In Management Research: Comments and a Quantitative Approach for Assessing the Theoretical Content Adequacy of Paper-and-Pencil Survey-Type Instruments

“…As would be expected in this type of analysis (cf. Osgood et al, 1961), the factor loadings shown are generally smaller than those obtained in the panel 1 Q-factor analysis. However, as also shown in Table 3 meaningful factor loadings is virtually identical.…”

“…If individual differences are to be excluded from the analysis, one may standardize the data by individual or average the ratings for each dimension across the judges (Cattell, 1978;Gorsuch, 1983;Nunnally, 1978). This latter approach (averaging across the judges) yields a standard Q-type analysis, and Osgood et al (1961) studied the effects of individual differences by comparing the results obtained by factoranalyzing an extended data matrix with those produced by a traditional Qfactor analysis. (If individual differences are of sufficient interest to warrant specific investigation, one, of course, could employ the three-mode variant of multi-mode factor analysis; cf.…”

“…Since this approach also uses Stephenson's (1953) Q-methodology and the factor analysis of extended data matrices (cf. Osgood, Ware, & Morris, 1961), these techniques are first discussed in broad terms below. Our use of these methods for content adequacy assessment is then discussed, along with an illustrative example applying this method.…”

A Preliminary Taxonomy of Attributions to God

“…In simple analyses, individual differences are not included, but in extended analyses they are included. For examples of three-mode factor analysis, see Osgood, Ware, and Morris (1961), whose procedure is very similar to ours, and Muthén, Olsson, Pettersson, & Stahlberg (1977), who uses a somewhat different procedure. It was expected that both the simple and extended analyses would give similar results, but that the simple analysis would account for a larger proportion of the variance because individual differences are not included (as was found in Osgood et al, 1961).…”

“…Following the procedures of Osgood et al (1961), an extended factor analysis was run examining attributional dimensions correlated with attributional items extended across participants. It was expected that a factor structure similar to the simple analysis would emerge, but that a smaller percentage of the variance would be accounted for (because participant variance is included).…”