The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The Impact of Categorization With Confirmatory Factor Analysis
Abstract
This study investigated the impact of categorization on confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) parameter estimates, standard errors, and 5 ad hoc fit indexes. Models were generated that represented empirical research situations in terms of model size, sample sizes, and loading values. CFA results obtained from analysis of normally distributed, continuous data were compared to results obtained from 5-category Likert-type data with normal distributions. The ordered categorical data were analyzed using the estimators: Weighted Least Squares (WLS; with polychoric correlation [PC] input) and Maximum Likelihood (ML; with Pearson Product-Moment [PPM] input). ML-PPM-based parameter estimates reported moderate levels of negative bias for all conditions, WLS-PC-based standard errors showed high amounts of bias, especially with a small sample size and moderate loading values. With nonnormally distributed, ordered categorical data, ML-PPM-based parameter estimates, standard errors, and factor intercorrelation showed high levels of bias. Bias levels in standard errors were reduced when the Satorra-Bentler (1988) rescaling correction was applied to nonnormal, ordered categorical data. Five ad hoc model fit indexes appeared robust to the majority of study conditions.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“The values of the skewness and kurtosis of all items ranged between -1.00 and 1.00, which indicated that the items were normally distributed (DiStefano, 2002).”
From Design and validation of the AI literacy questionnaire: The affective, behavioural, cognitive and ethical approach (2024) · cites this paper as DiStefano, 2002
Citations
Cites
Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) · Sociological Methods & Research · doi:10.1177/0049124192021002005 · Cited by 27,200
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 12×
“As with previous studies, the WLS estimator showed its sensi- tivity to smaller sample sizes, with higher chi-square values and two SRMR values that were beyond their cutoff level (.05; Hutchinson & Olmos; 1998; Muthén & Kaplan, 1985; Potthast, 1993).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluential
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 32
- Babakus E., 1987, Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 222, 10.2307/3151512 · DOI
- Benson J., 1994, Quality and Quantity, 28, 117, 10.1007/BF01102757 · DOI
- Benson, J. & Muthen, B. (1992, January). Confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal data using categorical variable methodology. Paper presented at the meeting of the Third National Symposium on Methodological Issues in Advanced Causal Modeling, Atlanta, GA.
- 10.1037//0033-2909.88.3.588 · DOI
- Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley. · DOI
- Bollen K. A., 1981, American Sociological Review, 46, 232, 10.2307/2094981 · DOI
- Borgatta E. F., 1980, Sociological Methods & Research, 9, 147, 10.1177/004912418000900202 · DOI
- Browne M. W., 1984, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1984.tb00789.x · DOI
- Coenders G., 1997, Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 261, 10.1080/10705519709540077 · DOI
- Dolan C. V., 1994, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 47, 309, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1994.tb01039.x · DOI
- Finch J. F., 1997, Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 87, 10.1080/10705519709540063 · DOI
- Green S. B., 1997, Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 108, 10.1080/10705519709540064 · DOI
- Homer P., 1988, Quality & Quantity, 22, 191, 10.1007/BF00223041 · DOI
- Hoogland J. J., 1998, Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 329, 10.1177/0049124198026003003 · DOI · Paper page
- Hu L., 1999, Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1, 10.1080/10705519909540118 · DOI · Paper page
- Hutchinson S. R., 1998, Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 115
- Johnson D. R., 1983, American Sociological Review, 48, 398, 10.2307/2095231 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00152012 · DOI
- Joreskog K. G., 1994, Psychometrika, 59, 381, 10.1007/BF02296131 · DOI
- Mayer L. S., 1971, American Sociological Review, 36, 519, 10.2307/2093098 · DOI
- Muthen B. O., 1984, Psychometrika, 49, 115, 10.1007/BF02294210 · DOI
- Muthen B., 1992, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1992.tb00975.x · DOI
- Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
- O'Brien R. M., 1985, Quality and Quantity, 19, 265, 10.1007/BF00170998 · DOI
- O'Brien R. M., 1987, Quality and Quantity, 21, 349, 10.1007/BF00172562 · DOI
- O'Dell, L. L. (1996). Fitting factor analysis models to categorical/non-symmetric variables under varying degrees of structural misspecification: A comparison of two estimators.Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 04B. (UMI No. AAI9626371)
- Potthast M. J., 1993, British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 46, 273, 10.1111/j.2044-8317.1993.tb01016.x · DOI
- Rigdon E. E., 1991, Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 491, 10.2307/3172790 · DOI
- Tanaka, T. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
- Tucker L. R., 1973, Psychometrika, 38, 1, 10.1007/BF02291170 · DOI · Paper page
- Ware W. B., 1975, Science Education, 59, 575, 10.1002/sce.3730590417 · DOI
- West, S. G., Finch, J. F. & Curran, P. J. (1995) Structural equation models with nonnormal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. A. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-73). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Li, C.-H. (2016) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7 · Cited by 3,031
Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0029315 · Cited by 2,816
Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: an overview and some recommendations
Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/a0014694 · Cited by 2,242
A Comparison of Diagonal Weighted Least Squares Robust Estimation Techniques for Ordinal Data
DiStefano, C., & Morgan, G. B. (2014) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.915373 · Cited by 705
Self-citationNg, D. T. K., Wu, W., Leung, J. K. L., Chiu, T. K. F., & Chu, S. K. W. (2024) · British Journal of Educational Technology · doi:10.1111/bjet.13411 · Cited by 390
Metadata
- Authors
- DiStefano, C.
- Venue
- Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2002-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 327-346
- ISSN
- 1070-5511
- 1532-8007
- Cited by
- 276
- References
- 2
- Language
- en
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
