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
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.
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
Sensitivity of Goodness of Fit Indexes to Lack of Measurement Invariance
Chen, F. F. (2007) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705510701301834 · Cited by 12,217
Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1103_2 · Cited by 6,691
Self-citationFactor analysis in the development and refinement of clinical assessment instruments.
Floyd, F. J., & Widaman, K. F. (1995) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.286 · Cited by 3,970
A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables
Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985) · British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8317.1985.tb00832.x · Cited by 1,778 · cited 1×
“…tests of fit that are robust in relation to nonnormality of observations and the use of categorical variables when there are at least four or more response categories (e.g., Beauducel & Herzberg, 2006; DiStefano, 2002; Dolan, 1994; Muthén & Kaplan, 1985; Rhemtulla, Brosseau-Liard, & Savalei, 2010).”
BackgroundA new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0019227 · Cited by 899
Self-citationFactor analysis and scale revision.
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.287 · Cited by 855
Cited by
Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016) · Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.961800 · Cited by 836
Self-citationSass, D. A. (2011) · Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment · doi:10.1177/0734282911406661 · Cited by 531
Marsh, H. W., Vallerand, R. J., Lafrenière, M.-A. K., Parker, P., Morin, A. J. S., Carbonneau, N., Jowett, S., Bureau, J. S., Fernet, C., Guay, F., et al. (2013) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/a0032573 · Cited by 420
Self-citationNeff, K. D., Tóth-Király, I., Yarnell, L. M., Arimitsu, K., Castilho, P., Ghorbani, N., Guo, H. X., Hirsch, J. K., Hupfeld, J., Hutz, C. S., et al. (2019) · Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1037/pas0000629 · Cited by 397
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J. S., & Forest, J. (2018) · Journal of Management · doi:10.1177/0149206316645653 · Cited by 258
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B.
- Venue
- Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.