English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The construct validity in relation to the dimensionality or factor structure of the Beck Hopelessness Scale (BHS) has long been debated in psychometrics. Irrelevant variance due to item wording (method effects) can distort the factor structure, and recent studies have examined the method factor’s role in the factor structure of the BHS. However, the models used to control the method effects have severe limitations, and new models are needed. One such model is the correlated trait-correlated method minus one (CT-C(M-1)), which is a powerful approach that gives the trait factor an unambiguous meaning and prevents the anomalous results associated with fully symmetrical bifactor modeling. The present work compares the fit and factor structure of the CT-C(M-1) model to bifactor models proposed in previous literature and evaluates the criterion validity of the CT-C(M-1) model and its discriminatory capacity by taking suicidal ideation as the criterion variable. This study used a large and heterogeneous open mode online sample of Argentinian people (N = 2,164). The results indicated that the CT-C(M-1) model with positive words as referenced items achieves the most adequate factor structure. The factorial scores derived from this model demonstrate good predictive and discriminating capabilities.

Internal Structure of Beck Hopelessness Scale: An Analysis of Method Effects Using the CT-C(M–1) Model