Search

Sexuality researchers frequently use exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to illuminate the distinguishable theoretical constructs assessed by a set of variables. EFA entails a substantive number of analytic decisions to be made with respect to sample size determination, and how factors are extracted, rotated, and retained. The available analytic options, however, are not all equally empirically rigorous. We discuss the commonly available options for conducting EFA and which options constitute best practices for EFA. We also present the results of a methodological review of the analytic options for EFA used by sexuality researchers in more than 200 EFAs, published in more than 160 articles and chapters from 1974 to 2014, in a sample of sexuality research journals. Our review reveals that best practices for EFA are actually those least frequently used by sexuality researchers. We introduce freely available analytic resources to help make it easier for sexuality researchers to adhere to best practices when conducting EFAs in their own research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article elaborates on reproducibility in psychology from a technological viewpoint. Modern open source computational environments are shown and explained that foster reproducibility throughout the whole research life cycle, and to which emerging psychology researchers should be sensitized, are shown and explained. First, data archiving platforms that make datasets publicly available are presented. Second, R is advocated as the data-analytic lingua franca in psychology for achieving reproducible statistical analysis. Third, dynamic report generation environments for writing reproducible manuscripts that integrate text, data analysis, and statistical outputs such as figures and tables in a single document are described. Supplementary materials are provided in order to get the reader started with these technologies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vocational interests have important implications for a range of life outcomes, such as satisfaction with career choice. Extending research on gender differences in vocational interests with adult samples, we sought to evaluate whether a similar pattern emerged during adolescence in a meta-analysis and explored moderators via meta-regression. Examining 41 studies using 3-level meta-analysis, gender differences in vocational interests are substantially accounted for using Holland's RIASEC framework. Male adolescents have higher interests in Realistic and Investigative careers and female adolescents have higher interests in Social and Artistic careers. The differences were not moderated by year, national gender inequality ratings, or scale type. The study highlights that there are patterns in gender differences in the vocational interests of adolescents, that these differences reflect those found with adult samples, and that the differences have been stable over the past 80 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Attachment styles are often primed by having participants recall and describe a relationship that is prototypical of a given attachment style. Researchers may exclude participants who cannot recall such a relationship or who describe relationships that do not conform to the assigned prime. I suggest that excluding participants is untenable and may threaten a study’s validity. In the present research, I examine predictors of exclusion from an attachment-priming study. Priming insecure attachment resulted in greater odds of exclusion relative to a control condition. Female participants with greater sexual experience also had lesser odds of exclusion. These results suggest that attachment-priming procedures contribute to participant exclusion that compromise internal and external validity. Discussion focuses on directions for future attachment-priming research. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

• Considering the replication crisis, metascientific reviews of therapy are needed. • We metascientifically reviewed Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for depression. • ACT is credibly better than weak control groups in depression treatment. • Some evidence comparing ACT with cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) was ambiguous. • Other evidence comparing ACT with CBT credibly indicated CBT's superiority. In the past three-and-a-half decades, nearly 500 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) for a range of health problems, including depression. However, emerging concerns regarding the replicability of scientific findings across psychology and mental health treatment outcome research highlight a need to re-examine the strength of evidence for treatment efficacy. Therefore, we conducted a metascientific review of the evidential value of ACT in treating depression. Whereas reporting accuracy was generally high across all trials, we found important differences in evidential value metrics corresponding to the types of control conditions used. RCTs of ACT compared to weaker controls (e.g., no treatment, waitlist) were well-powered, with sample sizes appropriate for detecting plausible effect sizes. They typically yielded stronger Bayesian evidence for (and larger posterior estimates of) ACT efficacy, though there was some evidence of significance inflation among these effects. RCTs of ACT against stronger controls (e.g., other psychotherapies), meanwhile, were poorly powered, designed to detect implausibly large effect sizes, and yielded ambiguous—if not contradicting—Bayesian evidence and estimates of efficacy. Although our review supports a view of ACT as efficacious for treating depression compared to weaker controls, future RCTs must provide more transparent reporting with larger groups of participants to properly assess the difference between ACT and competitor treatments such as behavioral activation and other forms of cognitive behavioral therapy. Clinicians and health organizations should reassess the use of ACT for depression if costs and resources are higher than for other efficacious treatments. Clinical trials contributing effects to our synthesis can be found at https://osf.io/qky35. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Sexual script research (Simon & Gagnon 1969 , 1986 ) bourgeoned following Simon and Gagnon's groundbreaking work. Empirical measurement of sexual script adherence has been limited, however, as no measures exist that have undergone rigorous development and validation. We conducted three studies to examine current dominant sexual scripts of heterosexual adults and to develop a measure of endorsement of these scripts. In Study 1, we conducted three focus groups of men ( n = 19) and four of women ( n = 20) to discuss the current scripts governing sexual behavior. Results supported scripts for sex drive, physical and emotional sex, sexual performance, initiation and gatekeeping, and evaluation of sexual others. In Study 2, we used these qualitative findings to develop a measure of script endorsement, the Sexual Script Scale. Factor analysis of data from 721 participants revealed six interrelated factors demonstrating initial construct validity. In Study 3, confirmatory factor analysis of a separate sample of 289 participants supported the model from Study 2, and evidence of factorial invariance and test-retest reliability was obtained. This article presents the results of these studies, documenting the process of scale development from formative research through to confirmatory testing, and suggests future directions for the continued development of sexual scripting theory.