The DOI matches its Crossref record; 49 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares
Open accessAbstract
In confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), the use of maximum likelihood (ML) assumes that the observed indicators follow a continuous and multivariate normal distribution, which is not appropriate for ordinal observed variables. Robust ML (MLR) has been introduced into CFA models when this normality assumption is slightly or moderately violated. Diagonally weighted least squares (WLSMV), on the other hand, is specifically designed for ordinal data. Although WLSMV makes no distributional assumptions about the observed variables, a normal latent distribution underlying each observed categorical variable is instead assumed. A Monte Carlo simulation was carried out to compare the effects of different configurations of latent response distributions, numbers of categories, and sample sizes on model parameter estimates, standard errors, and chi-square test statistics in a correlated two-factor model. The results showed that WLSMV was less biased and more accurate than MLR in estimating the factor loadings across nearly every condition. However, WLSMV yielded moderate overestimation of the interfactor correlations when the sample size was small or/and when the latent distributions were moderately nonnormal. With respect to standard error estimates of the factor loadings and the interfactor correlations, MLR outperformed WLSMV when the latent distributions were nonnormal with a small sample size of N = 200. Finally, the proposed model tended to be over-rejected by chi-square test statistics under both MLR and WLSMV in the condition of small sample size N = 200.
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimator with robust standard errors and a scaled/shifted test statistic was selected, as recommended for ordered categorical (Likert-scale) data [50], [51].”
From Enhancing Digital Financial Literacy and Digital Trust for Sustainable Online Loan Adoption among Micro-Entrepreneurs in Developing Economies (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“DWLS does not assume multivariate normality of indicators and provides more accurate parameter estimates for ordinal data compared with maximum likelihood-based estimators.”
From Enhancing Digital Financial Literacy and Digital Trust for Sustainable Online Loan Adoption among Micro-Entrepreneurs in Developing Economies (2026) · cites this paper as [50]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling
Tabri, N., & Elliott, C. M. (2012) · Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology · doi:10.15353/cgjsc.v1i1.3787 · Cited by 39,094
(1998) · Cited by 36,049
Structural Equations with Latent Variables
Bollen, K. A. (1989) · Wiley series in probability and statistics · doi:10.1002/9781118619179 · Cited by 17,944
Structural Equations with Latent Variables.
Clogg, C. C., & Bollen, K. A. (1991) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2072165 · Cited by 17,475
Testing Structural Equation Models.
Mueller, C. W., Bollen, K. A., & Long, J. S. (1994) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2074955 · Cited by 14,211
EQS : structural equations program manual
Bentler, P. M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 9,669
Modern Methods for Business Research
(1998) · doi:10.4324/9781410604385 · Cited by 6,534
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996) · Psychological Methods · doi:10.1037/1082-989x.1.1.16 · Cited by 5,512
(2011) · Cited by 5,290
Handbook of Structural Equation Modeling
Howard, A. L. (2013) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705511.2013.769397 · Cited by 3,465
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). Prelis 2: User’s reference guide: A program for multivariate data screening and data summarization. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
- Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,002 of 1,002
UTHAILEANG, W., Setthajit, R., Santoso, H. B., Figueroa, R. B., Buaprommee, N., & Sompaeng, A. (2026) · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-9679264/v1
Seclén Uchuya, M. L., Angulo Salas, R. J., Serpa-Barrientos, A., & Saintila, J. (2026) · Discover Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12982-026-01595-w · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Li, C.-H.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (US)
- Corresponding author
- Li, Cheng-Hsien
- Venue
- Behavior Research Methods
- Published
- 2015-07-15
- Volume
- 48
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 936-949
- ISSN
- 1554-351X (ISSN-L)
- 1554-3528
- OpenAlex
- W1819467863
- Cited by
- 3,031
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2026: 555 · 2025: 391 · 2024: 407 · 2023: 402 · 2022: 353 · 2021: 366 · 2020: 242 · 2019: 145 · 2018: 94 · 2017: 56 · 2016: 17
- FWCI
- 69.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Behavior Research Methods (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods and Bayesian Inference
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Distribution Estimation and Applications
- Keywords
- confirmatory factor analysis, ordinal data, non-normality, factor loadings, chi-square test, small sample size, categorical indicators
- MeSH terms
- Data Interpretation, Statistical, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Humans, Monte Carlo Method, Models, Statistical, Chi-Square Distribution, Likelihood Functions, Least-Squares Analysis, Sample Size
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