{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02049530315969257, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0034158838599487617, 'mean_word_length': 5.735632183908046, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Principles for identifying structural differences. Some methodological issues related to comparative factor analysis.

Several recent articles published in the Journal of Gerontology have been concerned with changes in factor structure of various psychological, social, and medical fitness measures. The present article reviews four principles for comparing structures and evaluates several recent articles in terms of these principles. The four principles are concerned with resolving: (1) problems of metric, (2) problems of rotation to similarity, (3) the number of factors problem, and (4) problems related to different extraction or rotational procedures across comparison groups. Utilization of a different metric in each correlation matrix implies that results may be a simple artifact of a different metric for each group. Failure to rotate to similarity and insufficient care with regard to the number of factors problem may result in artificially dissimilar structures. Finally, in comparing results across studies, differences in extraction or rotational procedures across different studies may result in differing results as artifacts of the methods employed.