Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 198

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Methodological Measurement Fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New Approaches to Key Substantive Issues in Motivation and Engagement

Marsh, Herbert W., Liem, Gregory Arief D., Martin, Andrew J., Morin, Alexandre J. S., Nagengast, Benjamin·2011·Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Abstract

The most popular measures of multidimensional constructs typically fail to meet standards of good measurement: goodness of fit, measurement invariance, lack of differential item functioning, and well-differentiated factors that are not so highly correlated as to detract from their discriminant validity. Part of the problem, the authors argue, is undue reliance on overly restrictive independent cluster models of confirmatory factor analysis (ICM-CFA) in which each item loads on one, and only one, factor. Here the authors demonstrate exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM), an integration of the best aspects of CFA and traditional exploratory factor analyses (EFA). On the basis of responses to the 11-factor Motivation and Engagement Scale ( n = 7,420, M age = 14.22), we demonstrate that ESEM fits the data much better and results in substantially more differentiated (less correlated) factors than corresponding CFA models. Guided by a 13-model taxonomy of ESEM full-measurement (mean structure) invariance, the authors then demonstrate invariance of factor loadings, item intercepts, item uniquenesses, and factor variancescovariances, across gender and over time. ESEM has broad applicability to other areas of research that cannot be appropriately addressed with either traditional EFA or CFA and should become a standard tool for use in psychometric tests of psychological assessment instruments.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0734282911406657

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 6 references

Cited by

See all 198

Metadata

Authors
Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B.
Venue
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
Published
2011-06-28
Volume
29
Issue
4
Pages
322-346
ISSN
  • 0734-2829 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-5144
OpenAlex
W2110137056
Cited by
198
References
6
FWCI
14.31
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: Methodological Measurement Fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New Approaches to Key Substantive Issues in Motivation and Engagement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0734282911406657
The paper
Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological Measurement Fruitfulness of Exploratory Structural Equation Modeling (ESEM): New Approaches to Key Substantive Issues in Motivation and Engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657

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.