Korean Journal of Cognitive Science (인지과학)

The Korean Society for Cognitive Science (한국인지과학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparison between Factor Structure and Semantic Representation of Personality Test Items Using Latent Semantic Analysis

잠재의미분석을 활용한 성격검사문항의 의미표상과 요인구조의 비교

  • Received : 2019.10.01
  • Accepted : 2019.10.02
  • Published : 2019.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

To investigate how personality test items are understood by participants, their semantic representations were explored by Latent Semantic Analysis, In this thesis, Semantic Similarity Matrix was proposed, which contains cosine similarity of semantic representations between test items and personality traits. The matrix was compared to traditional factor loading matrix. In preliminary study, semantic space was constructed from the passages describing the five traits, collected from 154 undergraduate participants. In study 1, positive correlation was observed between the factor loading matrix of Korean shorten BFI and its semantic similarity matrix. In study 2, short personality test was constructed from semantic similarity matrix, and observed that its factor loading matrix was positively correlated with the semantic similarity matrix as well. In conclusion, the results implies that the factor structure of personality test can be inferred from semantic similarity between the items and factors.

본 연구는 수검자가 검사 문항을 어떻게 이해했는지를 조사하기 위해 검사문항의 의미표상을 탐구하였다. 잠재의미분석을 활용하여 성격검사문항과 성격요인의 의미표상 간 유사도를 나타내는 의미유사도 행렬을 제안하였고, 이를 기존의 탐색적 요인분석 결과와 비교하였다. 이를 위해 예비 연구에서 대학생 154명을 대상으로 제한된 맥락에서 성격의 5요인을 각각 묘사하는 지문을 수집하였고, 이를 바탕으로 5차원의 축소하여 의미공간을 구성하였다. 연구 1에서는 간편형 한국어 BFI의 요인부하량 행렬과, 예비 연구에서 구성한 의미공간에서 생성한 의미유사도 행렬을 비교하여, 두 행렬이 높은 정적 상관이 있음을 보여주었다. 연구 2에서는 의미유사도를 기반으로 성격검사문항을 생성하고, 수검자의 반응을 수집하여 탐색적 요인분석을 통해 요인구조를 도출하여 두 행렬이 유사함을 보였다. 결론적으로 본 연구는 성격검사에 대한 수검자의 반응 없이 검사문항의 의미표상을 분석하여 구성타당도를 추론할 수 있는 방법을 제안하였고, 성격검사의 요인구조를 검사문항과 성격요인의 의미표상 간 유사도로 해석할 수 있음을 보여주었다. 이러한 결과는 성격검사 개발에 실용적인 도움을 줄 수 있을 것이다.

Keywords

References

  1. 강승식 (2002). 한국어 형태소 분석과 정보 검색. 서울: 홍릉과학출판사.
  2. 김지현, 김복환, 하문선 (2011). 간편형 한국어 BFI(Big Five Inventory) 타당화 연구. 인간이해, 32, 47-65.
  3. 민경환 (2002). 성격심리학. 서울: 법문사.
  4. 박홍석, 이정미 (2016). 정적 정서 부적 정서 척도(PANAS)의 타당화. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 35(4), 617-641.
  5. 이태헌 (2003). ELSA를 이용한 주제별 문서분류 및 다의어 의미 해소. 석사학위논문, 서울대학교, 서울.
  6. 김청택, 이태헌 (2002). 뇌와 인지 모형: 잠재의미 분석을 사용한 문서분류. 한국심리학회: 인지 및 생물, 14, 309-319.
  7. 이태헌, 김청택 (2004). LSA 모형에서 다의어 의미의 표상. 인지과학, 15, 1-53.
  8. 이현희, 김은정, 이민규 (2003). 한국판 정적 정서 및 부적 정서 척도(Positive Affect and Negative Affect Schedule; PANAS)의 타당화 연구. 한국심리학회지: 임상, 22(4), 935-946.
  9. 지혜성, 조준희, 임희석 (2010). 한국어 문장 표절 유형을 고려한 유사 문장 판별. 한국컴퓨터교육학회논문지, 13(6), 79-89.
  10. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44(1), 1-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
  11. Cattell, R. B. (1943). The description of personality: Basic traits resolved into clusters. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 38, 476-506. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054116
  12. Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1-9.
  13. Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
  14. Galton, E. (1884). Measurement of character. Fortnightly Review, 36, 179-185
  15. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative "description of personality": The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59(6), 1216-1229. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.59.6.1216
  16. Gong, Y., & Liu, X. (2001). Generic text summarization using relevance measure and latent semantic analysis. In Proceedings of the 24th annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, 19-25.
  17. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371-395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371
  18. Hill, F., Reichart, R., & Korhonen, A. (2015). Simlex-999: evaluating semantic models with (genuine) similarity estimation. Computational Linguistics, 41(4), 665-695. https://doi.org/10.1162/COLI_a_00237
  19. Hofstee, W. K., Kiers, H. A., De Raad, B., Goldberg, L. R., Ostendorf, F. (1997). A comparison of big-five structures of personality traits in Dutch, English, and German. European Journal of Personality, 11(1), 15-31. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199703)11:1<15::AID-PER273>3.0.CO;2-8
  20. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. Handbook of Personality: Theory and Research, 2(1999), 102-138.
  21. Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20(1), 141-151. https://doi.org/10.1177/001316446002000116
  22. Kwantes, P. J., Derbentseva, N., Lam, Q., Vartanian, O., & Marmurek, H. H. (2016). Assessing the big five personality traits with latent semantic analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 229-233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.07.010
  23. Tucker, L. R., & MacCallum, R. C. (1997). Exploratory factor analysis. Unpublished manuscript, Ohio State University, Columbus.
  24. Landauer, T. K., Laham, D., Rehder, B., & Schreiner, M. E. (1997). How well can passage meaning be derived without using word order? A comparison of latent semantic analysis and humans. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society, 412-417.
  25. Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
  26. Le, Q., & Mikolov, T. (2014). Distributed representations of sentences and documents. In Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML), 1188-1196.
  27. Finkelstein, L., Gabrilovich, E., Matias, Y., Rivlin, E., Solan, Z., Wolfman, G., & Ruppin, E. (2002). Placing search in context: The concept revisited. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 20(1), 116-131. https://doi.org/10.1145/503104.503110
  28. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, E T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoticism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587-597. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(85)90008-X
  29. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.1.81
  30. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1989). The structure of interpersonal traits: Wiggins's circumplex and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(4), 586-595. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.56.4.586
  31. Nakov, P., Popova, A., & Mateev, P. (2001). Weight functions impact on LSA performance. EuroConference RANLP, 187-193.
  32. Nigg, J. T., John, O. P., Blaskey, L. G., Huang-Pollock, C. L., Willicut, E. G., Hinshaw, S. P., & Pennington, B. (2002). Big five dimensions and ADHD symptoms: Links between personality traits and clinical symptoms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(2), 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.451
  33. Noftle, E. E., & Robins, R. W. (2007). Personality predictors of academic outcomes: Big five correlates of GPA and SAT scores. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(1), 116-130. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.1.116
  34. Norman, W. T. (1967). 2800 personality trait descriptors: Normative operating characteristics for a university population. Ann Arbor: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan.
  35. Ozer, D. J., & Benet-Martinez, V. (2006). Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annual. Review of Psychology, 57, 401-421. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127
  36. Saucier, G. (2002). Orthogonal markers for orthogonal factors: The case of the big five. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 1-31. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.2001.2335
  37. Thurstone, L. L. (1934). The vectors of mind. Psychological Review, 41, 1-32. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0075959
  38. Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. C., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  39. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS Scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 1063-1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.47.5.1063
  40. Watson, J. B. (1913). Psychology as the behaviorist views it. Psychological Review, 20(2), 158-177. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0074428
  41. Wild, F. (2014). lsa: Latent Semantic Analysis: R package version 0.73.