The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables With Misspecified Models
Abstract
Ordinal variables are common in many empirical investigations in the social and behavioral sciences. Researchers often apply the maximum likelihood method to fit structural equation models to ordinal data. This assumes that the observed measures have normal distributions, which is not the case when the variables are ordinal. A better approach is to use polychoric correlations and fit the models using methods such as unweighted least squares (ULS), maximum likelihood (ML), weighted least squares (WLS), or diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS). In this simulation evaluation we study the behavior of these methods in combination with polychoric correlations when the models are misspecified. We also study the effect of model size and number of categories on the parameter estimates, their standard errors, and the common chi-square measures of fit when the models are both correct and misspecified. When used routinely, these methods give consistent parameter estimates but ULS, ML, and DWLS give incorrect standard errors. Correct standard errors can be obtained for these methods by robustification using an estimate of the asymptotic covariance matrix W of the polychoric correlations. When used in this way the methods are here called RULS, RML, and RDWLS.
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
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 1×
“Methods developed for continuous variables are not suitable for such ordinal variables (see B. O. Muthén & Kaplan, 1985, 1992).”
BackgroundMaximum Likelihood Estimation of the Polychoric Correlation Coefficient
Olsson, U. (1979) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296207 · Cited by 1,127
Cited by
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
A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data
DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.915373 · Cited by 705
Moshagen, M., Hilbig, B. E., & Zettler, I. (2018) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/rev0000111 · Cited by 519
Examination of the Weighted Root Mean Square Residual: Evidence for Trustworthiness?
DiStefano, C., Liu, J., Jiang, N., & Shi, D. (2018) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2017.1390394 · Cited by 372
Metadata
- Authors
- Yang-Wallentin, F., Joreskog, K., & Luo, H.
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2010-07
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 392-423
- ISSN
- 1070-5511 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2070468459
- Cited by
- 307
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 13.95
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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: Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables With Misspecified Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10705511.2010.489003
- The paper
- Yang-Wallentin, F., Joreskog, K., & Luo, H. (2010). Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Ordinal Variables With Misspecified Models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2010.489003
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.