PubMed · 5566164
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
E Leiser. 1971. [A method for comparing 2 factor-matrices].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5566164/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Fluorescence spectra of hematoporphyrin IX (Hp) in water and in aqueous SDS solutions are obtained in the pH range 0.1 to 13 to determine the ionisation state of the molecule as a function of pH. In water, the spectra are complicated by aggregation which is quite severe near pH 4. In aqueous SDS, the aggregation is much less violent. Factor analysis (FA) is used to identify five species in the fluorescence spectra in each series of solutions. The distribution curve of these species as a function of pH is also obtained. By comparing the spectra and the distribution curve of Hp with those of HPPEEA, an ethanolamide derivative of Hp that does not contain the carboxylic groups (Part 3), the species are identified. For Hp in water we have obtained the following species: the dication in two allotropic forms in the pH range 0 to 5; the monocation (with the charge on an imino nitrogen) in the pH range 2 to 7; and the free base in the pH range 3.5 to 13. The monocation observed by the second derivative technique revealed three subspecies. For Hp in aqueous SDS we have obtained the following species; one dication in the pH range 0 to near 4; one monocation (with the charge on an imino nitrogen) in the pH range 0.5 to 9; three free bases (with no charge on the imino nitrogen) in the pH range 4 to 13. Of the latter, one species is the neutral molecule, another is a dianion (with the charges on the carboxylic side chains), and the third one appearing at pH higher than 10 is an allotropic form of the dianion.
The 5-factor approach (FFA) to personality description has been represented as a comprehensive and compelling rubric for assessment. In this article, various misgivings about the FFA are delineated. The algorithmic method of factor analysis may not provide dimensions that are incisive. The "discovery" of the five factors may be influenced by unrecognized constraints on the variable sets analyzed. Lexical analyses are based on questionable conceptual and methodological assumptions, and have achieved uncertain results. The questionnaire version of the FFA has not demonstrated the special merits and sufficiencies of the five factors settled upon. Serious uncertainties have arisen in regard to the claimed 5-factor structure and the substantive meanings of the factors. Some implications of these problems are drawn.
The five-factor model (FFM) of personality offers a structural organization of personality traits in terms of 5 broad factors. J. Block's (1995) critique of the FFM failed to recognize the utility of a trait taxonomy and the intent of research designed to test the 5-factor hypothesis. In a number of instances he omitted reference to empirical evidence that addresses concerns he raised; this evidence shows strong support for the FFM beyond the lexical and questionnaire traditions he reviews. Many of his suggestions for improving the quality of personality research are valuable, but are likely to be more fruitful when used in conjunction with established knowledge about the structure of personality traits: the FFM.