Multi-factor modeling in individual differences research: Some recommendations and suggestions

Personality and Individual Differences

Volumn 42, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 37-48

  Gignac, Gilles E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; Multi factor modeling; Personality; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750919308     PISSN: 01918869     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.paid.2006.06.019     Document Type: Article

References (23)

1. Boomsma A. Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling 7 3 (2000) 461-483
2. Chernyshenko O.S., Stark S., and Chan K.Y. Investigating the hierarchical factor structure of the Fifth Edition of the 16PF: an application of the Schmid-Leiman orthogonalization procedure. Educational and Psychological Measurement 61 (2001) 290-302
3. Fan X., and Sivo S.A. Sensitivity of fit indices to misspecified structural or measurement model components: rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling 12 3 (2005) 343-367
4. Gignac G.E. Openness to experience, general intelligence and crystallized intelligence: a methodological extension. Intelligence 33 (2005) 161-167
5. Gignac G.E. Revisiting the factor structure of the WAIS-R: insights through nested factor modeling. Assessment 12 3 (2005) 320-329
6. Gignac G.E. A confirmatory examination of the factor structure of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66 1 (2006) 136-145
7. Gignac G.E. Evaluating subtest 'g' saturation levels via the single trait-correlated uniqueness SEM approach: evidence in favour of crystallized subtests as the best indicators of 'g'. Intelligence 34 (2006) 29-46
8. Gignac G.E. The WAIS-III as a nested factors model: a useful alternative to the more conventional oblique and higher-order models. Journal of Individual Differences 27 (2006) 73-86
9. Gustafsson J., and Balke G. General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research 28 (1993) 407-434
10. Hayduk L.A. Structural equation modeling with LISREL: essentials and advances (1987), Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore
11. Holzinger K.J., and Swineford F. The bi-factor method. Psychometrika 2 (1937) 42-54
12. Hu L., and Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 1 (1999) 1-55
13. Humphreys L.G. The organization of human abilities. American Psychologist 17 (1962) 475-483
14. Kenny D.A., and McCoach D.B. Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 10 3 (2003) 333-351
15. Marsh H.W., Hau K.-T., and Wen Z. In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling 11 3 (2004) 320-341
16. McDonald R.P. Test theory: a unified treatment (1999), Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ
17. McDonald R.P., and Ho M.-H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods 7 1 (2002) 64-82
18. Schmid J., and Leiman J.M. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika 22 (1957) 53-61
19. Thompson G.H. The factor analysis of human ability. 5th ed. (1951), Houghton-Mifflin, New York
20. Thurstone L.L. Multiple factor analysis (1947), University of Chicago Press, Chicago
21. Vandenberg R.J., and Lance C.E. A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods 3 1 (2000) 4-70
22. Williams L., Ford L., and Nguyen N. Basic and advanced measurement models for confirmatory factor analysis. In: Rogelberg S. (Ed). Handbook of research methods in industrial and organizational psychology (2002), Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK 366-389
23. Yung Y.F., McLeod L.D., and Thissen D. On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika 64 (1999) 113-128