The Psychometrics of the Mini-K

Abstract

Many published studies have employed the Mini-K to measure a single fast-slow life history dimension. However, the internal structure of the Mini-K has not been determined and it is not clear that a single higher order K-factor fits the data. It is also not clear that the Mini-K is measurement invariant across groups such as the sexes. To establish the construct validity of K as well as the broader usefulness of applying life history theory to humans, it is crucial that these psychometric issues are addressed as a part of measure validation efforts. Here we report on three studies that used latent variable modeling and data drawn from two college student samples (ns ¼ 361 and 300) to elucidate the psychometrics of the Mini-K. We found that (a) the Mini-K had a six dimensional first-order structure, (b) the K-factor provided a parsimonious explanation of the associations among the lower order factors at no significant cost to fit, (c) the Mini-K measured the same K-factor across the sexes, (d) K-factor means did not have the same meaning across the sexes and thus the first-order factors should be used in studies of mean sex differences, and finally, (e) the K-factor was only associated with environment and aspects of mating competition in females. Implications and future directions for life history research are discussed.

Higher scores on the Mini-K life history battery are associated with greater disgust sensitivity on the three domains of disgust scale

“…As noted earlier, recent work has suggested that there may be more than one dimension to life history strategy, and that measures of K-factor including the Mini-K may not adequately assess mating competition . Nevertheless, there does appear to be an underlying K-factor dimension, even if it does not fully encompass all the variation in life history strategies (see Figueredo et al, 2015;Richardson et al, 2017). Although we did not assess mating effort, it seems plausible that disgust sensitivity, particularly for sexual disgust, would be lower in those who put more effort into mating and mate competition.…”

“…Existing psychometric measures of life history strategy may only tap into the K-factor, which includes long-term planning, quality of parental relationships, support from friends and relatives, community involvement, and pair-bonding . However, this Kfactor does not appear to subsume mating competition and mating effort, which may be a separate dimension altogether (Copping et al, 2017;Richardson et al, 2017). While there is clearly a need for more research into the psychometrics of life history strategy, existing survey measures have been shown to be reliable and internally consistent in yielding K-factor values that correlate with a number of relevant variables (see Figueredo et al, 2015).…”

“…Recently, some researchers have argued that life history strategy may not be fully captured by measures that treat it as a unidimensional variable running from fast to slow (see Copping, Campbell, & Muncer, 2014;Copping, Campbell, Muncer, & Richardson, 2017;Richardson, Chen, Dai, Brubaker, & Nedelec, 2017). Existing psychometric measures of life history strategy may only tap into the K-factor, which includes long-term planning, quality of parental relationships, support from friends and relatives, community involvement, and pair-bonding .…”

Testing the indirect effects of somatic and parental effort on stress: the roles of worldviews and coping strategies

“…Copping et al 2014;Gruijters and Fleuren 2018;Richardson et al 2017c). Research indicates, that K-factor has not subsumed mating effort and there are at least two separate dimensions of LHS: K-factor and mating effort (Richardson et al 2014(Richardson et al , 2017a; also see Copping et al 2014). There is a moderate negative residual correlation between them, which may be interpreted as a trade-off between the two LHS dimensions (Richardson et al 2017b).…”

“…It should be noted that according to the latest suggestions, K-factor does not capture overall life history speed, but more of one dimension (somatic and parental effort) of a multidimensional human LHS (e.g. Richardson et al 2017a).…”