ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Scale abbreviation with supervised machine learning: A comparison of feature selection techniques.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Scale abbreviation is a crucial task for researchers aiming to reduce response burden and optimize data collection when using self-report instruments such as online surveys and questionnaires. Among various data-driven strategies available for scale abbreviation, supervised machine learning (SML) algorithms have emerged as a prominent approach due to their accuracy in predicting total scores from the original instrument. However, previous studies offer limited insights into how SML-abbreviated scales can be evaluated using both SML and psychometric metrics across different feature selection techniques. To address this gap, the current study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of seven feature selection methods: item-total-correlation-based filters (ITC), Minimum-Redundancy-Maximum-Relevance (MRMR), Lasso, Sequential Forward Selection (SFS), Sequential Backward Selection (SBS), Genetic Algorithms (GA), and Non-dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithms-II (NSGA-II), all used in conjunction with SML. Additionally, the psychometric properties of these SML methods are compared with two non-SML approaches. Using simulated datasets varying in sample size, model error, and factorial correlations, the study examines predictive accuracy, reliability, and the ability to recover both inter-subscale correlations and external criterion correlations. The findings indicate that no single method consistently excels across all conditions, with specific feature selection techniques performing better under certain circumstances. Key insights are provided to guide researchers in selecting appropriate feature selection methods based on their specific dataset characteristics and goals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41612001What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.