The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables
Abstract
This paper considers the problem of applying factor analysis to non‐normal categorical variables. A Monte Carlo study is conducted where five prototypical cases of non‐normal variables are generated. Two normal theory estimators, ML and GLS, are compared to Browne's (1982) ADF estimator. A categorical variable methodology (CVM) estimator of Muthén (1984) is also considered for the most severely skewed case. Results show that ML and GLS chi‐square tests are quite robust but obtain too large values for variables that arc severely skewed and kurtotic. ADF, however, performs well. Parameter estimate bias appears non‐existent for all estimators. Results also show that ML and GLS estimated standard errors are biased downward. For ADF no such standard error bias was found. The CVM estimator appears to work well when applied to severely skewed variables that had been dichotomized. ML and GLS results for a kurtosis only case showed no distortion of chi‐square or parameter estimates and only a slight downward bias in estimated standard errors. The results are compared to those of other related studies.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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
“The normality of continuous variables was assessed by examining skewness statistics and normal probability plots. Following the suggestion by Muthen and Kaplan [65], skewness and kurtosis values within the range of −1 to +1 were considered acceptable indicators of normality.”
In the citing paper
“In the empirical field, an inverse association has been consistently found between the capacity for full awareness of the present moment (mindfulness) and the presence of psychological distress [20, 24].”
From Psychological inflexibility mediates the relationship between mindfulness and psychological distress in Peruvian parents with school age children. (2026) · cites this paper as [24]
In the citing paper
“Univariate normality of the data was verified using the guidelines proposed by Muthén and Kaplan (1985) before the analysis of the sample’s results (i.e., to check if acceptable values for asymmetry/asymmetry and kurtosis were in the range from − 1 to + 1 in the case of normal univariate data distribution).”
From Validation and Psychometric Evaluation of the Italian Version of the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (2022) · cites this paper as Muthén and Kaplan (1985)
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Schermelleh-Engel, K., Moosbrugger, H., & Müller, H. (2003) · Department of Psychology - University of Koblenz-Landau · doi:10.23668/psycharchives.12784 · Cited by 8,975
Practical issues in structural modeling
BENTLER, P. M., & CHOU, C.-P. (1987) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124187016001004 · Cited by 5,804
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16 · Cited by 5,512
Bond, F. W., Hayes, S. C., Baer, R. A., Carpenter, K. M., Guenole, N., Orcutt, H. K., Waltz, T., & Zettle, R. D. (2011) · Behavior Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.beth.2011.03.007 · Cited by 3,950
“All items, and AAQ-II total scores, were in acceptable ranges (Muthen & Kaplan, 1985).”
BackgroundByrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.105.3.456 · Cited by 4,105
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Los Angeles (US)
- Corresponding author
- Muthén, Bengt
- ORCID
- Muthén, Bengt
- Venue
- British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 1985-11
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 171-189
- ISSN
- 0007-1102 (ISSN-L)
- 2044-8317
- OpenAlex
- W1985442257
- Cited by
- 1,778
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 68 · 2025: 67 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 79 · 2022: 99 · 2021: 97 · 2020: 104 · 2019: 79 · 2018: 68 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 55 · 2015: 73 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 72
- FWCI
- 10.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Applications
- Keywords
- factor analysis, Likert scale data, kurtosis, maximum likelihood estimation, generalized least squares, standard error bias
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
