Reporting Practices in Confirmatory Factor Analysis: An Overview and Some Recommendations

Psychological Methods

Volumn 14, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 6-23

  Jackson, Dennis L ^a   Gillaspy Jr , J Arthur ^b   Purc Stephenson, Rebecca ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WINDSOR   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL ARKANSAS   (United States)

Author keywords

confirmatory factor analysis; construct validation; research methods; statistical reporting; structural equation models

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY; RESEARCH; STANDARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; HUMANS; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MODELS, STATISTICAL; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PSYCHOLOGY; PUBLISHING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE;

EID: 64649086851     PISSN: 1082989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0014694     Document Type: Article

References (82)

1. Akaike H. Factor analysis and AIC. Psychometrika 52 (1987) 317-332
2. American Psychological Association. Summary report of journal operations, 2006 [and] summary report of division journal operations, 2006. American Psychologist 62 (2007) 543-544
3. Arbuckle J.L. Full information estimation in the presence of incomplete data. In: Marcoulides G.A., and Schumacker R.E. (Eds). Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (1996), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
4. Bandalos D.L. The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 9 (2002) 78-102
5. Barrett P. Structural equation modeling: Adjudging model fit. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 815-824
6. Baumgartner H., and Homburg C. Applications of structural equation modeling in marketing and consumer research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 139-161
7. Bentler P.M. Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107 (1990) 238-246
8. Bentler P.M. EQS structural equations program manual (1995), Multivariate Software, Encino, CA
9. Bentler P.M. On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 825-829
10. Bentler P.M., and Bonett D.G. Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin 88 (1980) 588-606
11. Bollen K.A. Sample size and Bentler and Bonett's nonnormed fit index. Psychometrika 51 (1986) 375-377
12. Bollen K.A. Structural equations with latent variables (1989), John Wiley & Sons, New York
13. Boomsma A. Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling 7 (2000) 461-483
14. Breckler S.J. Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: Cause for concern?. Psychological Bulletin 107 (1990) 260-273
15. Brown R.L. Efficacy of the indirect approach for estimating structural equation models with missing data: A comparison of five methods. Structural Equation Modeling 1 (1994) 287-316
16. Brown T.A. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2006), Guilford, New York
17. Browne M.W. Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 37 (1984) 62-83
18. Browne M.W., and Cudeck R. Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In: Bollen K.A., and Long J.S. (Eds). Testing structural equation models (1993), Sage, Newbury Park, CA 136-162
19. Byrne B.M. Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (2004), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
20. Chin W.W. Issues and opinion on structural equation modeling. MIS Quarterly 22 (1998) vii-xvi
21. Chou C.P., Bentler P.M., and Satorra A. Scaled test statistics and robust standard errors for nonnormal data in covariance structure analysis: A Monte Carlo study. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 44 (1991) 347-357
22. Cudeck R. Analysis of correlation matrices using covariance structure models. Psychological Bulletin 105 (1989) 317-327
23. Curran P.J., West S.G., and Finch J.F. The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods 1 (1996) 16-29
24. DiStefano C. Effects of ordered categorical data with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling 9 (2002) 327-346
25. DiStefano C., and Hess B. Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 23 (2005) 225-241
26. Enders C.K. The impact of non-normality on Full Information Maximum-Likelihood Estimation for structural equation models with missing data. Psychological Methods 6 (2001) 352-370
27. Enders C.K., and Bandalos D.L. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling 8 (2001) 430-457
28. 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 (2005) 343-367
29. Fan X., Thompson B., and Wang L. The effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on SEM fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1999) 56-83
30. Fan X., and Wang L. Effects of potential confounding factors on fit indices and parameter estimates for true and misspecified SEM models. Educational and Psychological Measurement 58 (1998) 701-735
31. Flora D.B., and Curran P.J. An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods 9 (2004) 466-491
32. Goffin R.D. Assessing the adequacy of structural equation models: Golden rules and the editorial policies. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 831-839
33. Hayduk L.A. Structural equation modeling with LISREL: Essentials and advances (1988), The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, MD
34. Hershberger S.L. The growth of structural equation modeling: 1994-2001. Structural Equation Modeling 10 (2003) 35-46
35. Hoyle R.H., and Panter A.T. Writing about structural equation models. In: Hoyle R.H. (Ed). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (1995), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA 158-176
36. Hu L.-T., and Bentler P.M. Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods 3 (1998) 424-453
37. Hu L.-T., and Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6 (1999) 1-55
38. Hu L.-T., Bentler P.M., and Kano Y. Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted?. Psychological Bulletin 112 (1992) 351-362
39. Hulland J., Chow Y.H., and Lam S. Use of causal models in marketing research: A review. International Journal of Research in Marketing 13 (1996) 181-197
40. Jackson D.L. The effect of the number of observations per parameter in misspecified confirmatory factor analytic models. Structural Equation Modeling 14 (2007) 48-76
41. Jöreskog K.G. Testing structural equation models. In: Bollen K.A., and Long J.S. (Eds). Testing structural equation models (1993), Sage, Newbury Park, CA 294-316
42. Jöreskog K.G., and Sörbom D. LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods (1986), Scientific Software, Mooresville, IN
43. Kaplan D. Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2000), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
44. Kenny D.A. Series editor's note. In: Brown T.A. (Ed). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2006), Guilford, New York ix-x
45. Kline R.B. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 2nd ed. (2005), Guilford, New York
46. Loehlin J.C. Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path, and structural equation analysis. 4th ed. (2004), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
47. MacCallum R.C. Specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Psychological Bulletin 100 (1986) 107-120
48. MacCallum R.C. Model specification: Procedures, strategies, and related issues. In: Hoyle R.H. (Ed). Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (1995), Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA
49. MacCallum R.C., and Austin J.T. Applications of structural equation modeling in psychological research. Annual Review of Psychology 51 (2000) 201-226
50. MacCallum R.C., Browne M.W., and Sugawara H.M. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods 1 (1996) 130-149
51. Markland D. The golden rule is that there are no golden rules: A commentary on Paul Barrett's recommendations for reporting model fit in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 851-858
52. Marsh H.W., Balla J.R., and Hau K.-T. An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical properties. In: Marcoulides G.A., and Schumacker R.E. (Eds). Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques (1996), Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ
53. Marsh H.W., Hau K.-T., Balla J.R., and Grayson D. Is more ever too much? The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research 33 (1998) 181-220
54. 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 (2004) 320-341
55. Martens M.P. The use of structural equation modeling in counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist 33 (2005) 269-298
56. McDonald R.P. An index of goodness of fit based on noncentrality. Journal of Classification 6 (1989) 97-103
57. McDonald R.P., and Ho M.H.R. Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods 7 (2002) 64-82
58. McDonald R.P., and Marsh H.W. Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness of fit. Psychological Bulletin 107 (1990) 247-255
59. McKnight P.E., McKnight K.M., Sidani S., and Figueredo A.J. Missing data: A gentle introduction (2007), Guilford Press, New York
60. Medsker G.J., Williams L.J., and Holahan P.J. A review of current practices for evaluating causal models in organizational behavior and human resources management research. Journal of Management 20 (1994) 439-464
61. Miles J., and Shevlin M. A time and a place for incremental fit indices. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 869-874
62. Millsap R.E. Structural equation modeling made difficult. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 875-881
63. Muthén L.K., and Muthén B.O. How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling 9 (2002) 599-620
64. Nevitt J., and Hancock G.R. Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling 8 (2001) 353-377
65. Powell D.A., and Schafer W.D. The robustness of the likelihood ratio chi-square test for structural equation models: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics 26 (2001) 105-132
66. Raykov T., Tomer A., and Nesselroade J.R. Reporting structural equation modeling results in Psychology and Aging: Some proposed guidelines. Psychology and Aging 6 (1991) 499-503
67. Rubin D.B. Multiple imputations in sample surveys: A phenomenological Bayesian approach to nonresponse. Proceedings of the Research Methods Section of the American Statistical Association (1978) 20-34
68. Russell D.W. In search of underlying dimensions: The use (and abuse) of factor analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 28 (2002) 1629-1646
69. Satorra A., and Bentler P.M. Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section of the American Statistical Association (1994) 308-313
70. Schaefer J.L., and Graham J.W. Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods 7 (2002) 147-177
71. Schermelleh-Engel K., Moosbrugger H., and Müller H. Evaluating the fit of structural equation models: Tests of significance and descriptive goodness-of-fit measures. Methods of Psychological Research 8 (2003) 23-74
72. Schreiber J.B., Nora A., Stage F.K., Barlow E.A., and King J. Reporting structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analysis results: A review. The Journal of Educational Research 99 (2006) 323-337
73. Steiger J.H. EzPath: A supplementary module for SYSTAT and SYGRAPH (1989), SYSTAT, Evanston, IL
74. Steiger J.H. Driving fast in reverse: The relationship between software development, theory, and education in structural equation modeling. Journal of the American Statistical Association 96 (2001) 331-338
75. Steiger J.H. Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences 42 (2007) 893-898
76. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. M. (1980, June). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.
77. Thompson B. The importance of structure coefficients in structural equation modeling confirmatory factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement 57 (1997) 5-19
78. Thompson B. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications (2004), American Psychological Association, Washington, DC
79. Tremblay P.F., and Gardner R.C. On the growth of structural equation modeling in psychological journals. Structural Equation Modeling 3 (1996) 93-104
80. Tucker L.R., and Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38 (1973) 1-10
81. Worthington R.L., and Whittaker T.A. Scale development research: A content analysis and recommendations for best practices. The Counseling Psychologist 34 (2006) 806-838
82. Yuan K.H. Fit indices versus test statistics. Multivariate Behavioral Research 40 (2005) 115-148