The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Multitrait-Multimethod Data: A Comparison of Alternative Models
Open accessAbstract
Alternative models for confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod (MTMM) data were evaluated by varying the number of traits and methods and sample size for 255 MTMM matrices constructed from real data (Study 1), and for 180 MTMM matrices constructed from simulated data (Study 2). The correlated uniqueness model converged to proper solutions for 99% (Study 1) and 96% (Study 2) of the MTMM matrices, whereas the general model typically used converged to proper solutions for only 24% (Study 1) and 22% (Study 2) of the MTMM matrices. The general model was usually ill-defined (100% in Study 1, 90% in Study 2) for small MTMM matrices with small Ns, but performed better when the size of the MTMM matrix and N were larger. Even when both models converged to proper solutions, however, parameter estimates for the correlated uniqueness model were more accurate and precise in relation to known population parameters in Study 2.
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
Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0046016 · Cited by 17,116
Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns.
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1988) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265 · Cited by 2,880
Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests
Jöreskog, K. G. (1971) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02291393 · Cited by 1,481
Cited by
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 · Cited by 82,194
CONDUCTING INTERORGANIZATIONAL RESEARCH USING KEY INFORMANTS.
KUMAR, N., STERN, L. W., & ANDERSON, J. C. (1993) · Academy of Management Journal · doi:10.2307/256824 · Cited by 2,467
Lower bounds on sample size in structural equation modeling
Christopher Westland, J. (2010) · Electronic Commerce Research and Applications · doi:10.1016/j.elerap.2010.07.003 · Cited by 1,846
Is More Ever Too Much? The Number of Indicators per Factor in Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998) · Multivariate Behavioral Research · doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3302_1 · Cited by 1,307
Self-citationA General Approach for Representing Constructs in Organizational Research
Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998) · Organizational Research Methods · doi:10.1177/109442819800100104 · Cited by 1,217
Metadata
- Authors
- Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, M.
- Venue
- Applied Psychological Measurement
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-03
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 47-70
- ISSN
- 0146-6216 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-3497
- OpenAlex
- W2134402147
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 11.75
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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 Analyses of Multitrait-Multimethod Data: A Comparison of Alternative Models. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/014662169101500106
- The paper
- Marsh, H. W., & Bailey, M. (1991). Confirmatory Factor Analyses of Multitrait-Multimethod Data: A Comparison of Alternative Models. Applied Psychological Measurement. https://doi.org/10.1177/014662169101500106
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.
