The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Abstract
Measures that are reliable, valid, and can be used across diverse populations are vital to social work research, but the development of new measures is an expensive and time-consuming process. An array of existing measures can provide a cost-effective alternative, but in order to take this expedient step with confidence, researchers must ensure that the existing measure is appropriate for the new study. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is one of the ways to do so. CFA has four primary functions—psychometric evaluation of measures, construct validation, testing method effects, and testing measurement invariance. This book provides an overview of the method, step-by-step guides to creating a CFA model and assessing its fit, and explanations of the requirements for using CFA, as well the book underscores the issues that are necessary to consider when using multiple groups or equivalent and multilevel models. Real-world examples, screenshots from the Amos software program that can be used to conduct CFA, and reading suggestions for each chapter form part of the book.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“This outcome was not entirely unexpected given PICSE's conceptual nature [59].”
From What Needs Attention? Prioritizing Drivers of Developers' Trust and Adoption of Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as [59]
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
Cited by
Clarke, A., Friede, T., Putz, R., Ashdown, J., Martin, S., Blake, A., Adi, Y., Parkinson, J., Flynn, P., Platt, S., et al. (2011) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-11-487 · Cited by 493
Teachers' AI-TPACK: exploring the relationship between knowledge elements
Ning, Y., Zhang, C., Xu, B., Zhou, Y., & Wijaya, T. T. (2024) · Sustainability · doi:10.3390/su16030978 · Cited by 330
Psychological well‐being and the human conserved transcriptional response to adversity
Fredrickson, B. L., Grewen, K. M., Algoe, S. B., Firestine, A. M., Arevalo, J. M. G., Ma, J., & Cole, S. W. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0121839 · Cited by 205
Annear, M. J., Toye, C., Elliott, K.-E. J., McInerney, F., Eccleston, C., & Robinson, A. (2017) · BMC Geriatrics · doi:10.1186/s12877-017-0552-y · Cited by 212
Artificial Intelligence, AI literacy, Digital literacy, AI literacy scale
ÇELEBİ, C., YILMAZ, F., DEMİR, U., & KARAKUŞ, F. (2023) · Öğretim Teknolojisi ve Hayat Boyu Öğrenme Dergisi - Instructional Technology and Lifelong Learning · doi:10.52911/itall.1401740 · Cited by 77
Paladines-Costa, B., López-Guerra, V., Ruisoto, P., Vaca-Gallegos, S., & Cacho, R. (2021) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph18062944 · Cited by 37
Pittalis, M., Pitta-Pantazi, D., & Christou, C. (2018) · Mathematical Thinking and Learning · doi:10.1080/10986065.2018.1474533 · Cited by 18
Declining Employee Engagement & Employee Performance: The Noxious Effects of Workplace Bullying
Malik, M. S., & Sattar, S. (2020) · Journal of Business and Social Review in Emerging Economies · doi:10.26710/jbsee.v6i1.1035 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Harrington, D.
- Venue
- Oxford University Press eBooks
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press
- Published
- 2008-10-10
- OpenAlex
- W4298169675
- Cited by
- 1,105
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 2.97
- Type
- book
- 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
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.
