Confirmatory factor analysis and the validity of the measurement scales within a causal modelling framework;El análisis factorial confirmatorio y la validez de escalas en modelos causales

Anales de Psicologia

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 368-374

  García, José Antonio Martínez ^a   Caro, Laura Martínez ^a  

^a TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY OF CARTAGENA   (Spain)

Author keywords

Causal models; Confirmatory factor analysis; Structural equation modelling; Validity

Indexed keywords

EID: 70449360726     PISSN: 02129728     EISSN: 16952294     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Anderson, J. C., y Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103 (3), 411-423.
2. Bentler, P. M. (2000). Rites, wrongs, and gold in model testing. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 82-91.
3. Bergkvist, L. y Rossiter, J. R. (2007). The predictive validity of multiple-item vs. single-item measures of the same constructs. Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 175-184.
4. Bollen, K. A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. Wiley Series in Probability and Mathematical Statistics. New York: Wiley.
5. Bollen, K. A. 2002. Latent Variables in Psychology and the Social Sciences. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 605-634.
6. Borsboom, D., Mellenbergh, G. J., y van Heerden, J. (2004). The concept of validity. Psychological Review, 111 (4), 1061-1071.
7. Borsboom, D. (2006). The attack of the psychometricians. Psychometrika, 71, 425-440.
8. Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: the two cultures. (With invited comments). Statistical Science, 16, 199-215.
9. Burt, R. S. (1976). Interpretational confounding of unobserved variables in structural equation models. Sociological Methods and Research, 5, 3-52.
10. Campbell, D.T., y Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
11. Cattel, R. B. (1946). Description and measurement of personality. New York: World Book.
12. Cohen, J. (1990). Things I have learned (so far). American Psychologist, 45, 1304-1312.
13. Cook, T., y Campbell, D. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design and analysis issues for field settings. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
14. Cronbach, L. J., y Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological test. Pyschological Bulletin, 52, 218-302.
15. Fenollar, P. y Ruiz, S. (2006). La posesión de productos con significado social para el consumidor: determinantes internos y externos. Revista Española de Investigación de Marketing, 10 (2), 7-24
16. Fornell, C., y Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 27 (Febrero), 39-50.
17. Fornell, C., y Yi, Y. (1992a). Assumptions of the two-step approach to latent variable modeling. Sociological Methods and Research, 20 (1), 291-320.
18. Fornell, C., y Yi, Y. (1992a). Assumptions of the two-step approach to latent variable modeling. Reply to Anderson and Gerbing. Sociological Methods and Research, 20 (1), 334-339.
19. Hayduk, L. A. (1996). LISREL Issues, Debates and Strategies. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
20. Hayduk, L.A., y Glaser, D. N. (2000a). Jiving the four-step, waltzing around factor analysis, and other serious fun. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7 (1), 1-35.
21. Hayduk, L.A., y Glaser, D. N. (2000b). Doing the four-step right-2-3-4, wrong-2-3-4: A reply to Mulaik and Millsap, Bollen, Bentler, Herting and Costner. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 7 (1), 111-123.
22. Hayduk, L. A., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Pazderka-Robinson, H., y Boulianne, S. (2007). Testing! Testing! one, two, three Testing the theory in structural equation models!. Personality and Individual Differences, 42 (5), 841-850.
23. Hayduk, L. A., Pazderka-Robinson, H., Cummings, G., Boadu, K., Verbeek, E., y Perks, T. (2007). The weird world and equally weird measurement models: Reactive indicators and the validity revolution. Structural Equation Modeling, 14 (2), 280-310.
24. Kelley, T. L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements. New York: Macmillan.
25. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Second Edition. New York: The Guildford Press.
26. Meehl, P. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir jarl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806-834.
27. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. En R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed.) (13-103). New York: American Council on Education & Macmillan.
28. Mulaik, S. A., y Millsap, R. E. (2000). Doing the four-step right. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 36-73.
29. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
30. Rossiter, J. R. (2002). The coarse procedure for scale development in marketing. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 19, 305-335.
31. Schmidt, F. L. y Hunter, J. E. (1999). Theory testing and measurement error. Intelligence, 27, 183-198.
32. Sousa, C., Torregrosa, M., Viladrich, C., Villamaría, F. y Cruz, J. (2007). The commitment of young soccer players. Psicothema, 19, 256-262.
33. Topa, G. y Morales, F (2006). Identificación organizacional y proactividad personal en grupos de trabajo: Un modelo de ecuaciones estructurales. Anales de Psicología, 22 (2), 234-242.