CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 112

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

On the use of confirmatory factor analysis in personality research

Raykov, Tenko·1998·Personality and Individual Differences
DOI 10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00159-1
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00159-1

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • The chi-square value tends to increase with large sample sizes, so it was not considered the most adequate fit index in the present study.

    “It is a well-known fact that w 2 value tends to increase with large sample sizes (e.g., Raykov, 1998); therefore, it was not considered the most adequate fit index in the present study.”

    From Job demands–resources model in the context of recovery: Testing recovery experiences as mediators (2011) · cites this paper as Raykov, 1998

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Curran, 1996, The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis, Psychological Methods, 1, 16, 10.1037/1082-989X.1.1.16 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Hu, 1992, Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted?, Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351, 10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.351 · DOI
  3. MacCallum, 1996, Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling, Psychological Methods, 1, 130, 10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Marsh, 1994, Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size and model parsimony, Quality and Quantity, 28, 185, 10.1007/BF01102761 · DOI
  5. McCrae, 1996, Evaluating replicability of factors in the revised NEO personality inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552, 10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.552 · DOI
  6. McDonald, 1989, An index of goodness-of-fit based on noncentrality, Journal of Classification, 6, 97, 10.1007/BF01908590 · DOI
  7. Raykov, 1995, Issues in applied structural equation modeling research, Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 289, 10.1080/10705519509540017 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Raykov, T.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1998-02
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
291-293
ISSN
0191-8869
DOI
10.1016/s0191-8869(97)00159-1
Cited by
112
References
1
Language
en
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)

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