The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Monte Carlo Study Investigating the Impact of Item Parceling on Measures of Fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Abstract
A simulation study was conducted to examine the effect of item parceling on goodness-of-fit indices at different levels of sample size, number of indicators per factor, factor structure/pattern coefficients, interfactor correlations, and item-level data distribution. Results revealed that the use of item parcels yielded more nonconverged solutions and Heywood cases than individual items. The likelihood of nonconverged solutions and Heywood cases increased as the number of indicators per factor (more items per parcel) decreased. Meanwhile, parcel solutions as compared with item solutions resulted in better fit as measured by the chi-square to degrees-of-freedom ratio, Goodness-of-Fit Index (GFI), Expected Cross-Validation Index (ECVI), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA), as well as two incremental fit indices, the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI). The same pattern of results was found with data that varied in terms of skewness and kurtosis at the item level. However, the likelihood of nonconverged solutions and Heywood cases was more pronounced when data were extremely skewed/kurtotic at the item level.
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
Cited by
Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications.
Thompson, B. (2004) · doi:10.1037/10694-000 · Cited by 3,469
An empirical comparison of the efficacy of covariance-based and variance-based SEM
Reinartz, W., Haenlein, M., & Henseler, J. (2009) · International Journal of Research in Marketing · doi:10.1016/j.ijresmar.2009.08.001 · Cited by 2,906
Why the items versus parcels controversy needn’t be one.
Little, T. D., Rhemtulla, M., Gibson, K., & Schoemann, A. M. (2013) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0033266 · Cited by 1,603
Chen, F., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Paxton, P. (2008) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124108314720 · Cited by 1,538
The QCAE: a questionnaire of cognitive and affective empathy
Reniers, R. L. E. P., Corcoran, R., Drake, R., Shryane, N. M., & Völlm, B. A. (2011) · Journal of Personality Assessment · doi:10.1080/00223891.2010.528484 · Cited by 961
Metadata
- Authors
- Nasser, F., & Wisenbaker, J.
- Venue
- Educational and Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-10
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 729-757
- ISSN
- 0013-1644 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3888
- OpenAlex
- W1965432627
- Cited by
- 264
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.24
- 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: A Monte Carlo Study Investigating the Impact of Item Parceling on Measures of Fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0013164403258228
- The paper
- Nasser, F., & Wisenbaker, J. (2003). A Monte Carlo Study Investigating the Impact of Item Parceling on Measures of Fit in Confirmatory Factor Analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164403258228
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.