The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis With Ordinal Data.
Open accessAbstract
Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is widely used for examining hypothesized relations among ordinal variables (e.g., Likert-type items). A theoretically appropriate method fits the CFA model to polychoric correlations using either weighted least squares (WLS) or robust WLS. Importantly, this approach assumes that a continuous, normal latent process determines each observed variable. The extent to which violations of this assumption undermine CFA estimation is not well-known. In this article, the authors empirically study this issue using a computer simulation study. The results suggest that estimation of polychoric correlations is robust to modest violations of underlying normality. Further, WLS performed adequately only at the largest sample size but led to substantial estimation difficulties with smaller samples. Finally, robust WLS performed well across all conditions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Comparative fit indexes in structural models.
Bentler, P. M. (1990) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.238 · Cited by 25,266
Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach
Steiger, J. H. (1990) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4 · Cited by 7,408
Sample size in factor analysis.
MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.4.1.84 · Cited by 5,497
A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables
Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x · Cited by 1,778 · cited 3×
“…& Jöreskog, 1987; Green, Akey, Fleming, Hershberger, & Marquis, 1997; Hutchinson & Olmos, 1998;B. Muthén & Kaplan, 1992), parameters are underestimated (Babakus et al., 1987;B. Muthén & Kaplan, 1992), and standard error estimates tend to be downwardly biased (B. Muthén & Kaplan, 1985, 1992).”
MethodMaximum Likelihood Estimation of the Polychoric Correlation Coefficient
Olsson, U. (1979) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296207 · Cited by 1,127
Pearson, K. (1903) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical or Physical Character · doi:10.1098/rsta.1903.0001 · Cited by 415
Cited by
Construction and factorial validation of a short form of the Self-Compassion Scale
Raes, F., Pommier, E., Neff, K. D., & Van Gucht, D. (2011) · Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy · doi:10.1002/cpp.702 · Cited by 2,997
Li, C.-H. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 · Cited by 3,031
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029315 · Cited by 2,816
Thanks coefficient alpha, we’ll take it from here.
McNeish, D. (2018) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/met0000144 · Cited by 2,533
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0014694 · Cited by 2,242
Metadata
- Authors
- Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J.
- Venue
- Psychological Methods
- Published
- 2004-12
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 466-491
- ISSN
- 1082-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1463
- OpenAlex
- W2157703634
- Cited by
- 3,019
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 36.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis With Ordinal Data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.466
- The paper
- Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An Empirical Evaluation of Alternative Methods of Estimation for Confirmatory Factor Analysis With Ordinal Data. Psychological Methods. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.466
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
