No abstract

The importance of interpreting structure coefficients throughout the General Linear Model (GLM) is widely accepted. However, regression researchers too infrequently consult regression structure coefficients to augment their interpretations. The authors reviewed articles published in the Journal of Applied Psychology to determine how interpretations might have differed if standardized regression coefficients and structure coefficients (or else bivariate rs of predictors with the criterion) had been interpreted. Some dramatic misinterpretations or incomplete interpretations are summarized. It is suggested that beta weights and structure coefficients (or else bivariate rs of predictors with the criterion) ought to be interpreted when noteworthy regression results have been isolated.

This article examines the scale structure of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA). Confirmatory factor analysis reveals that a three-factor model is a better fit than one-or two-factor models for the normative sample. These findings lend support to the construct validity of the RSCA. The three-factor model is discussed as a framework that is useful in systematically relating critical aspects of resiliency in children and adolescents for the purpose of clinical intervention.Résumé: L'article suivant porte sur la structure des Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents (RSCA). Une analyse factorielle confirmatoire révèle qu'un modèle à trois facteurs constitue une meilleure solution que des modèles à un ou à deux facteurs, chez un échantillon normatif. Ces résultats appuient la validité de concept des RSCA. Le modèle à trois facteurs est abordé dans un contexte utile qui relie systématiquement des aspects cruciaux de la résilience chez les enfants et les adolescents, dans une perspective d'intervention clinique.

This article examines invariance of the three-factor structure of the Resiliency Scales for Children and Adolescents across age band and gender within normative samples. Confirmatory factor analysis reveals that the three-factor model fits for all groups. In addition, invariance analysis shows no statistical differences in factor structure between males and females. A three-group confirmatory factor analysis across age bands demonstrated partial invariance between age bands.

Norm-referenced error analysis is useful for understanding individual differences in students' academic skill development and for identifying areas of skill strength and weakness. The purpose of the present study was to identify underlying connections between error categories across five language and math subtests of the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3) through exploratory factor analyses (EFAs). The EFA results were supportive of models with two or three factors for each of the five subtests. Significant inter-factor correlations within subtests were identified in all subtests, except between two factors within the Math Concepts and Application (MCA) subtest. There was also consistency in the covariance patterns of some error categories across subtests, particularly within the Nonsense Word Decoding (NWD) and Spelling (SP) subtests. This consistency was supportive of the proposed factor structures. The factor structures yielded by these analyses were used as the bases for the other articles in this special issue.