Fit of different models for multitrait-multimethod experiments

Structural Equation Modeling

Volumn 9, Issue 2, 2002, Pages 213-232

  Corten, Irmgard W ^a   Saris, Willem E ^a   Coenders, Germà ^b   van der Veld, William ^a   Aalberts, Chris E ^a   Kornelis, Charles ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GIRONA   (Spain)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 16244416907     PISSN: 10705511     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_4     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Althauser, R. P., Herberlein, T. A., & Scott, R. A. (1971). A causal assessment of validity: The augmented multitrait-multimethod matrix. In H. M. Blalock, Jr. (Ed.), Causal models in the social sciences (pp. 151-169). Chicago: Aldine.
2. Alwin, D. (1974). An analytic comparison of four approaches to the interpretation of relationships in the multitrait-multimethod matrix. In H. L. Costner (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1973-1974 (pp. 79-105). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
3. Andrews, F. M. (1984). Construct validity and error components of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 409-442.
4. Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 24, 222-229.
5. Bagozzi, R. P. (1993). Assessing construct validity in personality research. Applications to measures of self-esteem. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 49-87.
6. Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 426-439.
7. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
8. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588-606.
9. Billiet, J., Loosveldt, G., & Waterplas, L. (1986). Het survey-interview onderzucht: effecten van het ontwerp en gebruik van vragenlijsten op de kwaliteit van de antwoorden. Leuven, Sociologisch Onderzoeksinstituut KU Leuven.
10. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
11. Browne, M. W. (1984). The decomposition of multitrait-multimethod matrices. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 1-21.
12. Browne, M.W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
13. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrices. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
14. Campbell, D. T., & O'Connell, E. J. (1967). Method factors in multitrait-multimethod matrices: Multiplicative rather than additive? Multivariate Behavioral Research, 2, 409-426.
15. Campbell, D. T., & O'Connell, E. J. (1982). Methods as diluting trait relationships rather than adding irrelevant systematic variance. In D. Brinberg & L. Kidder (Eds.), Forms of validity in research (pp. 93-111). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
16. Coenders, G., & Saris, W. E. (1998). Relationship between a restricted correlated uniqueness model and a direct product model for multitrait-multimethod data. In A. Ferligoj (Ed.), Advances in methodology, data analysis and statistics: Metodološki Zvezki (pp. 151-172). Ljubljana, Slovenia: FDV.
17. Coenders, G., & Saris, W. E. (2000). Testing nested additive, multiplicative and general multitrait multimethod models. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 219-250.
18. Coenders, G., Satorra, A., & Saris, W. E. (1997). Alternative approaches to structural modeling of ordinal data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 261-282.
19. Cudeck R. (1989). Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 317-327.
20. de Wit, H. (1994). Cijfers en hun achterliggende realiteit: De MTMM-kwaliteitsparameters op hun kwaliteit onderzocht [Numbers and their underlying reality: The MTMM quality parameters for measurement quality research]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
21. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1987). Improper solutions in the analysis of covaricance structures: Their interpretability and a comparison of alternate respecifications. Psychometrika, 52, 99-111.
22. Homer, P., & O'Brien, R. M. (1988). Using LISREL models with crude rank category measures. Quality and Quantity, 22, 191-201.
23. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model specification. Psychological Methods, 3, 424-453.
24. Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183-202.
25. Jöreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109-133.
26. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). PRELIS: A program for multivariate data screening and data summarization (2nd ed.). Mooresville, IL: Scientific Software International.
27. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1989). LISREL VII: A guide to the program and applications. Chicago: SPSS.
28. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). New features in LISREL8. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
29. Kenny, D. A. (1976). An empirical application of confirmatory factor analysis to the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 247-252.
30. Költringer, R. (1995). Measurement quality in Austrian personal interview surveys. In W. E. Saris & A. Münnich (Eds.), The multitrait-multimethod approach to evaluate measurement instruments (pp. 207-224). Budapest, Hungary: Eötvös University Press.
31. Kumar, A., & Dillon, W. R. (1992). An integrative look at the use of additive and multiplicative covariance structure models in the analysis of MTMM data. Journal of Marketing Research, 29, 51-64.
32. Luijben, T. (1989). Statistical guidance for model modification in covariance structure analysis. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.
33. Marsh, H.W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analysis of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335-361.
34. Marsh, H.W., & Bailey, M. (1991). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: comparison of the behavior of alternative models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 47-70.
35. Marsh, H.W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (pp. 315-353), Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
36. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodness-of-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
37. Mulaik, S. A., James L. R., Van Alstine, J., Bennett, N., Lind, S., & Stillwell, C. D. (1989). Evaluation of goodness-of-fit indexes for structural equation models. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 430-445.
38. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1989). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19-30.
39. O'Brien, R. M. (1985). The relationship between ordinal measures and their underlying values: Why all the disagreement? Quality and Quantity, 19, 265-277.
40. O'Brien, R. M., & Homer, P. (1987). Correction for coarsely categorized measures: LISREL's polyserial and polychoric correlations. Quality and Quantity, 21, 349-360.
41. Olsson, U. (1979a). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44, 443-460.
42. Olsson, U. (1979b). On the robustness of factor analysis against crude categorization of observations. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14, 485-500.
43. Olsson, U., Drasgow, F., & Dorans, N. J. (1982). The polyserial correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 47, 337-347.
44. Parry, C. D. H., & McArdle, J. J. (1991). An applied comparison of methods for least-squares factor analysis of dichotomous variables. Applied Psychological Measurement, 15, 35-46.
45. Quiroga, A. M. (1992). Studies of the polychoric correlation and other correlation measures for ordinal variables. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Uppsala.
46. Rodgers, W. L., Andrews, F. M., & Herzog, A. R. (1992). Quality of survey measures: A structural modeling approach. Journal of Official Statistics, 8, 251-275.
47. Saris, W. E. (1990a). The choice of a model for evaluation of measurement instruments. In W. E. Saris & A. van Meurs (Eds.), Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod studies (pp. 118-129). Amsterdam: North Holland.
48. Saris, W. E. (1990b). Models for evaluation of measurement instruments. In W. E. Saris & A. van Meurs (Eds.), Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod studies (pp. 52-80). Amsterdam: North Holland.
49. Saris, W. E., den Ronden, J., & Satorra, A. (1987). Testing structural equation models. In P. Cuttance & R. Ecob (Eds.), Structural modelling by example (pp. 202-220). New York: Cambridge University Press.
50. Saris, W. E., Satorra, A., & Sörbom, D. (1987). The detection and correction of specification errors in structural equation models. Sociological Methodology, 17, 105-129.
51. Saris, W. E., & Satorra, A. (1988). Characteristics of structural equation models which affect the power of the Likelihood Ratio Test. In W. E. Saris & I. N. Gallhofer (Eds.), Sociometric research (Vol. 2, pp. 220-236). London: Macmillan.
52. Saris, W. E., Scherpenzeel, A. C., & vanWijk, T. (1998). Validity and reliability of subjective social indicators: The effect of different measures of association. Social Indicators Research, 45, 173-199.
53. Saris, W. E., & van Meurs, A. (Eds.). (1990). Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices. Amsterdam: North Holland.
54. Satorra, A., & Saris, W. E. (1985). The power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83-90.
55. Scherpenzeel, A. C. (1995). A question of quality: Evaluating survey questions by multitrait-multimethod studies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Amsterdam.
56. Scherpenzeel, A. C., & Saris, W. E. (1997). The validity and reliability of survey questions. A meta analysis of MTMM studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 25, 341-383.
57. van de Veld, W., & Saris, W. E. (2000). Problems in multitrait-multimethod studies. Kwantitatieve Methoden, 64, 87-116.
58. van Driel, O. P. (1987). On various causes of improper solutions in maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 43, 225-243.
59. van Meurs, A., & Saris, W. E. (1990). Memory effects in MTMM studies. In W. E. Saris & A. van Meurs (Eds.), Evaluation of measurement instruments by meta-analysis of multitrait-multimethod matrices (pp. 136-146). Amsterdam, North Holland.
60. Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-26.