odr_k4tana, to random

community: I found a paper that developed a short scale and tested it via and clustering. (Paper here: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0281021). Now for me, this is odd as it uses two clustering techniques to assess scale quality. But then again this is a sociology paper and I know that sociologists and psychologists have a different world view. In case you didn't know: Sociologists tend to look at groups within society or societies at large, whereas psychologists tend to see individuals and groups as aggregates of individuals. Obviously, coming from a sociological perspective, using such clustering methods makes sense. However, I still have mixed feelings about this approach. I still feel a IRT approach would be better since obviously k-means and LPA does NOTHING to evaluate items, for example.

How do you see this? Am I completely wrong here?

TEG, (edited ) to programming
@TEG@mastodon.online avatar

Some methods to determine the number of components or clusters in PCA or k-means clustering: https://thomasgladwin.substack.com/p/finding-the-true-number-of-components/. These at least work in the limit of ideal simulated data.

The basic rationale is to use random split-half data to identify what's "true" versus sampling error. Scores are based on similarities between eigenvectors or cluster centres, rather than, e.g., the shape of the eigenvalue plot.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • megavids
  • tacticalgear
  • magazineikmin
  • cubers
  • everett
  • rosin
  • Youngstown
  • ngwrru68w68
  • slotface
  • osvaldo12
  • Durango
  • kavyap
  • InstantRegret
  • DreamBathrooms
  • JUstTest
  • khanakhh
  • GTA5RPClips
  • normalnudes
  • thenastyranch
  • mdbf
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • cisconetworking
  • anitta
  • lostlight
  • All magazines