{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.026619343389529725, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.409090909090909, '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}}
Measuring self-complexity: a critical analysis of Linville's H statistic.

The paper argues that the most commonly used measure of self-complexity, Linville's H statistic, cannot measure this construct appropriately. It first examines the mathematical properties of H and its relationships with five related indices: the number of self-aspects, the overlap among self-aspects, the average inter-aspect correlation, the ratio of endorsement, and the HICLAS attribute class number. Then, a demonstration study using simulations is reported. Three conclusions are drawn. H and the HICLAS attribute class number are similar in the way they are calculated. Both indices are highly related to the number of self-aspects, while their relationship to overlap is not monotonic. Overlap is affected by the ratio of endorsement and the average inter-aspect correlation but cannot represent the notion of redundancy among traits which directly determines Linville's H statistic. These conclusions are employed to explain the inconsistent findings relating self-complexity and adaptation and an alternative measurement approach is proposed.