Abstract

This commentary addresses debate over the factor structure of the Grit Scale in both its original and short forms. Commonly (and in our own work), factor solutions are used to establish dimensionality of the construct being measured. For example, a two-factor hierarchical model was proposed for the Short Grit Scale. It has since been pointed out, correctly, that the specified model cannot be distinguished from a model with two correlated subfactors and no higher-order factor. In this commentary, we acknowledge the mathematical equivalence of these specifications and our error in interpretation. However, we also take the opportunity to admit a more profound correction. It is now clear to us that statistical answers cannot definitively settle certain theoretical riddles, and our argument for grit as a compound of related but distinct dispositions should not have relied so heavily on the optimal factor solution for a questionnaire devised to assess it. Rather, a conceptual question demands a conceptual answer, which we briefly attempt here. We conclude by noting the need for improved operationalizations of the tendency to stay committed to goals for years (passion) while working assiduously toward their achievement (perseverance).

摘要

这篇评论以原始和简短的形式解决了关于毅力量表的因素结构的争论。通常（以及在我们自己的工作中），因子解用于建立被测量结构的维度。例如，为 Short Grit Scale 提出了一个双因素分层模型。后来人们正确地指出，指定的模型无法与具有两个相关子因子且没有高阶因子的模型区分开来。在本评论中，我们承认这些规范的数学等价性以及我们的解释错误。但是，我们也借此机会承认更深刻的修正。现在我们很清楚，统计答案并不能最终解决某些理论谜团，我们将毅力作为相关但不同性格的复合体的论点不应该如此严重地依赖于设计用于评估它的问卷的最佳因素解决方案。相反，一个概念性的问题需要一个概念性的答案，我们在这里简要地尝试一下。最后，我们注意到需要改进对目标的承诺（热情）同时努力实现目标（毅力）的趋势的操作化。