Bifactor-(S-1) models of teacher Big Five personality fit student and teacher data better than single-domain or three-facets models¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q2
Currency · newest study 2023 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? Across all five Big Five domains, bifactor-(S-1) models showed better fit (lower AIC) than three-facets models, which in turn fit better than single-domain models. → Burić 2023

Evidence¶

Burić 2023¶

Burić, Irena, Butković, Ana and Kim, Lisa (2023) Teacher personality domains and facets: Their unique associations with student-ratings of teaching quality and teacher enthusiasm. Learning and Instruction. 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2023.101827

q2 · i? · associational · r2

Model comparison of 15 predictive models (single-domain, three-facets, bifactor-(S-1)) fitted with doubly latent MSEM in Mplus 8.8; the article reports ΔAIC values substantially greater than 2 favoring bifactor-(S-1) models, concluding the "bifactor-(S-1) representation of teacher personality is supported by the data to the greatest extent".

"These results suggest that the bifactor-(S-1) representation of teacher personality is supported by the data to the greatest extent."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In an empirical comparison on a testlet-based English assessment test, the bifactor model is preferred over the second-order and unidimensional 2PL models by both AIC and BIC — related
• A multidimensional IRT model with simple structure fits testlet-based reading data better than both the general polytomous testlet model and the standard 2PL/GPCM — related
• Open-mindedness facets show no significant unique associations with student-rated teaching quality or teacher enthusiasm in bifactor-(S-1) models — related
• Ignoring testlet effects by fitting a unidimensional 2PL model produced mild shrinkage of item intercept and loading estimates toward zero relative to the bifactor model — related
• The second-order multidimensional IRT model for testlets is formally equivalent to the testlet model, and both are restricted bifactor models — related
• The proportionality restrictions that the testlet model imposes on the bifactor model were implausible in the applied dataset, as specific-to-general loading quotients varied far from constant within testlets — related
• The general sociability reference factor uniquely and positively predicts student-rated classroom management, student support, and teacher enthusiasm, while assertiveness and energy level add no unique prediction — related
• The general compassion reference factor uniquely predicts only student support, while the trust facet incrementally predicts teacher enthusiasm — related
• The general organization reference factor is weakly negatively related to cognitive activation, student support, and teacher enthusiasm, but these associations become non-significant after controlling for covariates — a narrower finding that bears on this claim
• Higher order cognitive skills (inference, perspective taking, comprehension monitoring) fit a bifactor structure with a general cross-language factor and language-specific factors in English and Spanish — related