Factor-Analytic Evidence for the Complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)
Factor-Analytic Evidence for the Complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System (D-KEFS)
复制标题
Delis-Kaplan 执行功能系统 (D-KEFS) 复杂性的因素分析证据
DOI：
10.1177/1073191119843584
复制
发表时间：
2020
期刊：
影响因子：
3.8
通讯作者：
D. McFarland
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. McFarland
本研究考察了Delis-Kaplan执行功能系统的复杂性，包括对整个电池进行建模所需的总体因素数量和对单个测试进行建模所需因素数量的复杂性。Delis-Kaplan执行功能系统标准化样本测试之间的相关性用不同数量的因素建模。测试分数的模拟也进行了，改变了用于生成数据的因素数量，并考虑了基于特征值、拟合指数和对新数据的泛化的因素保留标准。结果表明，基于对验证样本的固定权重泛化的七因子解决方案提供了最佳估计。修正指标产生了三个七因子解，模型拟合比较，但因子负荷显著不同。这些结果与过程重叠理论是一致的，该理论认为复杂的测试是由许多不同的执行过程决定的。考虑到因子分析解决方案的不确定性，对测试分数含义的解释应基于测试项目之外的证据，例如它们对临床条件的敏感性。对基于因素分析结果的执行测试性能的过于简单化的解释是不合理的。这与测试作者的认知加工方法一致。
This study examined the complexity of the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System both in terms of the overall number of factors needed to model the entire battery and the complexity of the number of factors needed to model individual tests. The correlations between tests from the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function System standardization sample were modeled with varying numbers of factors. Simulations of test scores were also done that varied the number of factors used to generate the data and considered criteria for factor retention based on eigenvalues, fit indices, and generalization to new data. The results show seven-factor solutions based on generalization of fixed weights to validation samples provided best estimates. Modification indices produced three seven-factor solutions with comparable model fit but markedly different factor loadings. These results are consistent with process overlap theory, which suggest that complex tests are determined my many distinct executive processes. Given uncertainty of factor-analytic solutions, interpretation of the meaning of test scores should be based on evidence that is external to the test items, such as their sensitivity to clinical conditions. Overly simplistic interpretations of executive test performance based on factor-analytic results are not warranted. This is consistent with the cognitive processing approach of the test authors.
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Smith, Gregory T.;McCarthy, Denis M.;Zapolski, Tamika C. B.
通讯作者：
Zapolski, Tamika C. B.