The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Sensitivity of Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis to Violations of Measurement Scale and Distributional Assumptions
Abstract
A large-scale simulation design was used to study the sensitivity of maximum likelihood (ML) factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions in the input data. Product-moment, polychoric. Spearman's rho, and Kendall's tau- b correlations computed from ordinal data were used to estimate a single-factor model. The resulting ML estimates were compared on the bases of convergence rates and improper solutions, accuracy of the loading estimates, fit statistics, and estimated standard errors. The LISREL maximum likelihood solution algorithm was used to estimate model parameters. The polychoric correlation procedure was found to provide the most accurate estimates of pairwise correlations and factor loadings but performed worst on all goodness-of-fit criteria. LISREL overestimated all standard errors, thus not reflecting the effects of standardization as previously assumed. When the data were categorized, the polychoric correlations led to the best estimates of the standard errors.
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
Maximum Likelihood Estimation of the Polychoric Correlation Coefficient
Olsson, U. (1979) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02296207 · Cited by 1,127
Cited by
Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach
Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.3.411 · Cited by 41,941
An assessment of the use of partial least squares structural equation modeling in marketing research
Hair, J. F., Sarstedt, M., Ringle, C. M., & Mena, J. A. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science · doi:10.1007/s11747-011-0261-6 · Cited by 8,088
Cronin, J. J., Brady, M. K., & Hult, G. T. M. (2000) · Journal of Retailing · doi:10.1016/s0022-4359(00)00028-2 · Cited by 6,398
Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.9.4.466 · Cited by 3,019
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
Metadata
- Authors
- Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E., & Jöreskog, K. G.
- Venue
- Journal of Marketing Research
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1987-05
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 222-228
- ISSN
- 0022-2437 (ISSN-L)
- 1547-7193
- OpenAlex
- W1997228212
- Cited by
- 304
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 7.12
- 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: The Sensitivity of Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis to Violations of Measurement Scale and Distributional Assumptions. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/002224378702400209
- The paper
- Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1987). The Sensitivity of Confirmatory Maximum Likelihood Factor Analysis to Violations of Measurement Scale and Distributional Assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378702400209
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.