Cited by 1,200Psychometric Methodologies and TestingStatistical Methods and ApplicationsStatistical Methods and Bayesian Inference

Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables

Holgado–Tello, Francisco Pablo, Chacón–Moscoso, Salvador, Barbero–García, Isabel, Vila–Abad, Enrique·2010·Quality & Quantity

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11135-008-9190-y

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Holgado–Tello, F. P., Chacón–Moscoso, S., Barbero–García, I., & Vila–Abad, E.
Venue
Quality & Quantity
Published
2008-09-07
Volume
44
Issue
1
Pages
153-166
ISSN
  • 0033-5177 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-7845
OpenAlex
W2080218231
Cited by
1,200
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 144 · 2025: 101 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 96 · 2021: 115 · 2020: 94 · 2019: 92 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 68 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 64 · 2014: 48 · 2013: 23 · 2012: 20
FWCI
11.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Quality & Quantity (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
Keywords
polychoric correlation, Pearson correlation, ordinal data, Likert scale, exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, construct validity, measurement model, simulation study

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review