Literature DB >> 35585278

Dynamic fit index cutoffs for one-factor models.

Daniel McNeish1, Melissa G Wolf2.   

Abstract

Assessing whether a multiple-item scale can be represented with a one-factor model is a frequent interest in behavioral research. Often, this is done in a factor analysis framework with approximate fit indices like RMSEA, CFI, or SRMR. These fit indices are continuous measures, so values indicating acceptable fit are up to interpretation. Cutoffs suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) are a common guideline used in empirical research. However, these cutoffs were derived with intent to detect omitted cross-loadings or omitted factor covariances in multifactor models. These types of misspecifications cannot exist in one-factor models, so the appropriateness of using these guidelines in one-factor models is uncertain. This paper uses a simulation study to address whether traditional fit index cutoffs are sensitive to the types of misspecifications common in one-factor models. The results showed that traditional cutoffs have very poor sensitivity to misspecification in one-factor models and that the traditional cutoffs generalize poorly to one-factor contexts. As an alternative, we investigate the accuracy and stability of the recently introduced dynamic fit cutoff approach for creating fit index cutoffs for one-factor models. Simulation results indicated excellent performance of dynamic fit index cutoffs to classify correct or misspecified one-factor models and that dynamic fit index cutoffs are a promising approach for more accurate assessment of model fit in one-factor contexts.
© 2022. The Psychonomic Society, Inc.

Entities:  

Year:  2022        PMID: 35585278     DOI: 10.3758/s13428-022-01847-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  28 in total

1.  Latent variables in psychology and the social sciences.

Authors:  Kenneth A Bollen
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 24.137

2.  When fit indices and residuals are incompatible.

Authors:  Michael W Browne; Robert C MacCallum; Cheong-Tag Kim; Barbara L Andersen; Ronald Glaser
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2002-12

3.  The insidious effects of failing to include design-driven correlated residuals in latent-variable covariance structure analysis.

Authors:  David A Cole; Jeffrey A Ciesla; James H Steiger
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2007-12

4.  Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for non-normal data in covariance structure analysis: a Monte Carlo study.

Authors:  C P Chou; P M Bentler; A Satorra
Journal:  Br J Math Stat Psychol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 3.380

5.  An empirical Kaiser criterion.

Authors:  Johan Braeken; Marcel A L M van Assen
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2016-03-31

6.  Using Fit Statistic Differences to Determine the Optimal Number of Factors to Retain in an Exploratory Factor Analysis.

Authors:  W Holmes Finch
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2019-07-31       Impact factor: 2.821

7.  Model Fit and Item Factor Analysis: Overfactoring, Underfactoring, and a Program to Guide Interpretation.

Authors:  D Angus Clark; Ryan P Bowles
Journal:  Multivariate Behav Res       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 5.923

8.  Depression is not a consistent syndrome: An investigation of unique symptom patterns in the STAR*D study.

Authors:  Eiko I Fried; Randolph M Nesse
Journal:  J Affect Disord       Date:  2014-10-14       Impact factor: 4.839

9.  How to determine the number of factors to retain in exploratory factor analysis: A comparison of extraction methods under realistic conditions.

Authors:  Max Auerswald; Morten Moshagen
Journal:  Psychol Methods       Date:  2019-01-21

10.  The Psychometric Properties of the Prioritizing Positivity Scale.

Authors:  Lahnna I Catalino; Aaron J Boulton
Journal:  J Pers Assess       Date:  2020-11-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.