Literature DB >> 17154751

Random intercept item factor analysis.

Albert Maydeu-Olivares1, Donna L Coffman.   

Abstract

The common factor model assumes that the linear coefficients (intercepts and factor loadings) linking the observed variables to the latent factors are fixed coefficients (i.e., common for all participants). When the observed variables are participants' observed responses to stimuli, such as their responses to the items of a questionnaire, the assumption of common linear coefficients may be too restrictive. For instance, this may occur if participants consistently use the response scale idiosyncratically. To account for this phenomenon, the authors partially relax the fixed coefficients assumption by allowing the intercepts in the factor model to change across participants. The model is attractive when m factors are expected on the basis of substantive theory but m + 1 factors are needed in practice to adequately reproduce the data. Also, this model for single-level data can be fitted with conventional software for structural equation modeling. The authors demonstrate the use of this model with an empirical data set on optimism in which they compare it with competing models such as the bifactor and the correlated trait-correlated method minus 1 models. Copyright 2006 APA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17154751     DOI: 10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Methods        ISSN: 1082-989X


  35 in total

1.  Temperament factors and dimensional, latent bifactor models of child psychopathology: Transdiagnostic and specific associations in two youth samples.

Authors:  Benjamin L Hankin; Elysia Poggi Davis; Hannah Snyder; Jami F Young; Laura M Glynn; Curt A Sandman
Journal:  Psychiatry Res       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.222

2.  Hypothesis testing for coefficient alpha: an SEM approach.

Authors:  Alberto Maydeu-Olivares; Donna L Coffman; Carlos García-Forero; David Gallardo-Pujol
Journal:  Behav Res Methods       Date:  2010-05

3.  Model error in covariance structure models: Some implications for power and Type I error.

Authors:  Donna L Coffman
Journal:  Methodology (Gott)       Date:  2008-01-01

4.  Does Acquiescence Affect Individual Items Consistently?

Authors:  Chester Chun Seng Kam; Mingming Zhou
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2014-11-27       Impact factor: 2.821

5.  Further Considerations in Using Items With Diverse Content to Measure Acquiescence.

Authors:  Chester Chun Seng Kam
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2015-05-18       Impact factor: 2.821

6.  Disagreeing about development: An analysis of parent-teacher agreement in ADHD symptom trajectories across the elementary school years.

Authors:  Aja Louise Murray; Tom Booth; Denis Ribeaud; Manuel Eisner
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2018-05-30       Impact factor: 4.035

7.  Negative and positive beliefs related to mood and health.

Authors:  Raymond L Ownby; Amarilis Acevedo; Robin J Jacobs; Joshua Caballero; Drenna Waldrop-Valverde
Journal:  Am J Health Behav       Date:  2014-07

8.  Method effects of the relation between family history of alcoholism and parent reports of offspring impulsive behavior.

Authors:  Angela M Haeny; Andrew K Littlefield; Phillip K Wood; Kenneth J Sher
Journal:  Addict Behav       Date:  2018-07-30       Impact factor: 3.913

9.  Likelihood-based confidence intervals for a parameter with an upper or lower bound.

Authors:  Joshua N Pritikin; Lance M Rappaport; Michael C Neale
Journal:  Struct Equ Modeling       Date:  2017-01-27       Impact factor: 6.125

10.  Contextual Responses to Affirmative and/or Reversed-Worded Items.

Authors:  Ulf Böckenholt
Journal:  Psychometrika       Date:  2019-09-04       Impact factor: 2.500

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.