Ch temperament dimension, which in turn allow more specific and nuanced links to other variables of interest to be examined, and (2) elimination of error variance, improving power to detect relations with other variables of interest. While switching to a latent variable approach may inevitably pose some challenges (e.g., time required for analysis and the need for relatively larger7If sample size is too small to permit CFA analysis, the results of the current study suggest that the use of individual subscale scores may be justified, as subscale factors generally had good fit. However, researchers may wish to consider dropping items 3, 19, and 41, which did not load well on their subscales, or on the final bifactor models (from which they were dropped). Our results further suggest that, with the exception of the Attention and Inhibitory Control subscales, any combination of subscales at the manifest level should be done with caution and the understanding that the resulting measures will be an imprecise admixture of both common and specific variances for each temperament dimension. Further, our results suggest that the EATQ-R should not be used to assess PE, given the lack of demonstrated construct validity. J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; Aviptadil biological activity available in PMC 2015 December 08.Snyder et al.Pagesample sizes), it also opens many exciting possibilities for achieving new insights into adolescent temperament dimensions and their relation to important life outcomes, both in new studies and through re-analysis of existing datasets. Effortful Control–EC is defined in Rothbart’s temperament model as a self-regulatory component that supports the ability to appropriately control behavior and attention (e.g., Putnam et al., 2001; Rueda, Posner, Rothbart, 2005). This model includes three aspects of EC: (1) attention (capacity to focus and shift attention appropriately), (2) inhibitory control (capacity to suppress inappropriate responses and plan future action), and (3) activation control (ability to perform an action when there is a strong tendency to avoid it). The findings from this study indicate that most variance in EC as measured by the EATQ-R is accounted for by what is common across these three aspects of EC (Common EC),8 but there was also a factor specific to Activation Control. This LCZ696 web structure has not been previously captured by EFA analyses of the EATQ-R, or of Rothbart’s temperament measures for children (CBQ; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, Fisher, 2001) or adults (ATQ; Evens Rothbart, 2007), which have combined all aspects of EC into a single factor, which in the case of the CBQ also contained seemingly unrelated aspects of temperament. This structure, with both common and unique aspects of EC, parallels that of the closely related construct of executive function (EF), where there are both specific EF abilities and a common EF ability, which spans these components (Friedman et al., 2008; Miyake Friedman, 2012). While future research is needed to determine how EC and EF constructs are related, the EATQ-R Common EC factor may represent a similar construct to this common EF factor, which is posited to be the ability to actively maintain goals and use them to guide behavior (Miyake Friedman, 2012). Likewise, most EC items in the EATQ-R are related to the ability to maintain goals and use them to control behavior, such as maintaining focus on tasks, completing tasks, and following rules. In contrast, given the focus of Activation Con.Ch temperament dimension, which in turn allow more specific and nuanced links to other variables of interest to be examined, and (2) elimination of error variance, improving power to detect relations with other variables of interest. While switching to a latent variable approach may inevitably pose some challenges (e.g., time required for analysis and the need for relatively larger7If sample size is too small to permit CFA analysis, the results of the current study suggest that the use of individual subscale scores may be justified, as subscale factors generally had good fit. However, researchers may wish to consider dropping items 3, 19, and 41, which did not load well on their subscales, or on the final bifactor models (from which they were dropped). Our results further suggest that, with the exception of the Attention and Inhibitory Control subscales, any combination of subscales at the manifest level should be done with caution and the understanding that the resulting measures will be an imprecise admixture of both common and specific variances for each temperament dimension. Further, our results suggest that the EATQ-R should not be used to assess PE, given the lack of demonstrated construct validity. J Pers Soc Psychol. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2015 December 08.Snyder et al.Pagesample sizes), it also opens many exciting possibilities for achieving new insights into adolescent temperament dimensions and their relation to important life outcomes, both in new studies and through re-analysis of existing datasets. Effortful Control–EC is defined in Rothbart’s temperament model as a self-regulatory component that supports the ability to appropriately control behavior and attention (e.g., Putnam et al., 2001; Rueda, Posner, Rothbart, 2005). This model includes three aspects of EC: (1) attention (capacity to focus and shift attention appropriately), (2) inhibitory control (capacity to suppress inappropriate responses and plan future action), and (3) activation control (ability to perform an action when there is a strong tendency to avoid it). The findings from this study indicate that most variance in EC as measured by the EATQ-R is accounted for by what is common across these three aspects of EC (Common EC),8 but there was also a factor specific to Activation Control. This structure has not been previously captured by EFA analyses of the EATQ-R, or of Rothbart’s temperament measures for children (CBQ; Rothbart, Ahadi, Hershey, Fisher, 2001) or adults (ATQ; Evens Rothbart, 2007), which have combined all aspects of EC into a single factor, which in the case of the CBQ also contained seemingly unrelated aspects of temperament. This structure, with both common and unique aspects of EC, parallels that of the closely related construct of executive function (EF), where there are both specific EF abilities and a common EF ability, which spans these components (Friedman et al., 2008; Miyake Friedman, 2012). While future research is needed to determine how EC and EF constructs are related, the EATQ-R Common EC factor may represent a similar construct to this common EF factor, which is posited to be the ability to actively maintain goals and use them to guide behavior (Miyake Friedman, 2012). Likewise, most EC items in the EATQ-R are related to the ability to maintain goals and use them to control behavior, such as maintaining focus on tasks, completing tasks, and following rules. In contrast, given the focus of Activation Con.
