Why item parcels are (Almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right-camouflaging misspecification with item parcels in CFA models

Psychological Methods

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 2013, Pages 257-284

  Marsh, Herbert W ^a,b,c   Lüdtke, Oliver ^d   Nagengast, Benjamin ^b,e   Morin, Alexandre J S ^a   Von Davier, Matthias ^f  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^c KING SAUD UNIVERSITY   (Saudi Arabia)

^d HUMBOLDT UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TÜBINGEN   (Germany)

^f EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE   (United States)

Author keywords

Exploratory structural equation models; Item parcels; Measurement invariance; Misfit; Scale development

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; FACTORIAL ANALYSIS; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PERSONALITY TEST; PSYCHOMETRY; SELF CONCEPT; STATISTICS;

FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; PERSONALITY INVENTORY; PSYCHOMETRICS; SELF CONCEPT; STATISTICS AS TOPIC;

EID: 84883766816     PISSN: 1082989X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0032773     Document Type: Article

References (83)

1. Alhija, F. N.-A., & Wisenbaker, J. (2006). A Monte Carlo study investigating the impact of item parceling strategies on parameter estimates and their standard errors in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 204-228
2. Anderson, S. E., Coffey, B. S., & Byerly, R. T. (2002). Formal organizational initiatives and informal workplace practices: Links to work- family conflict and job-related outcomes. Journal of Management, 28, 787-810
3. Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 397-438
4. Bachman, J. G. (2002). Documentation manual (Vol. 1). Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research
5. Bagozzi, R. P., & Edwards, J. R. (1998). A general approach for representing constructs in organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 45-87
6. Bandalos, D. L. (2002). The effects of item parceling on goodness-of-fit and parameter estimate bias in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 78-102
7. Bandalos, D. L. (2008). Is parceling really necessary A comparison of results from item parceling and categorical variable methodology. Structural Equation Modeling, 15, 211-240
8. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), New developments and techniques in structural equation modeling (pp 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
9. Borkenau, P., & Ostendorf, F. (1990). Comparing exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: A study on the 5-factor model of personality Personality and Individual Differences, 11, 515-524
10. Box, G. E. P. (1979). Some problems of statistics and everyday life Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 1-4
11. Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111-150
12. Cattell, R. B. (1949). A note on factor invariance and the identification of factors. British Journal of Psychology, 2, 134-139
13. Cattell, R. B. (1956). Validation and intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 12, 205-214
14. Cattell, R. B. (1974). Radial parcel factoring vs. item factoring in defining personality structure in questionnaires: Theory and experimental checks Australian Journal of Psychology, 26, 103-119
15. Coffman, D. L., & MacCallum, R. C. (2005). Using parcels to convert path analysis models into latent variable models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 40, 235-259
16. Comrey, A. L. (1984). Comparison of two methods to identify major personality factors. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8, 397-408
17. Cook, K. F., Kallen, M. A., & Amtmann, D. (2009). Having a fit: Impact of number of items and distribution of data on traditional criteria for assessing IRT's unidimensionality assumption. Quality of Life Research, 18, 447-460
18. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI): Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
19. Cudeck, R., & Henly, S. J. (1991). Model selection in covariance structures analysis and the "problem" of sample size: A clarification. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 512-519
20. de Winter, J. C. F., Dodou, D., & Wieringa, P. A. (2009). Exploratory factor analysis with small sample sizes. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 44, 147-181
21. Ding, L., Velicer, W. F., & Harlow, L. L. (1995). The effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices. Structural Equation Modeling, 2, 119-143
22. Dolan, C. V., Oort, F. J., Stoel, R. D., & Wicherts, J. M. (2009). Testing measurement invariance in the target rotated multigroup exploratory factor model. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 295-314
23. Enders, C. K., & Bandalos, D. L. (2001). The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 430-457
24. Gallucci, M., & Perugini, M. (2007). The Marker Index: A new method of selection of marker variables in factor analysis. TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 14, 3-25
25. Haberman, S. J., von Davier, M., & Lee, Y. (2008). Comparison of multidimensional item response models: Multivariate normal ability distributions versus multivariate polytomous ability distributions (ETS Research Report No. RR-08-45). Retrieved from http://www.ets.org/research/policy_research_reports/publications/report/2008/hsqr
26. Hall, R. J., Snell, A. F., & Foust, M. S. (1999). Item parceling strategies in SEM: Investigating the subtle effects of unmodeled secondary constructs Organizational Research Methods, 2, 233-256
27. Hau, K.-T., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Nonnormal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327-351
28. Holden, R. R., & Fekken, G. C. (1994). The NEO Five-Factor Inventory in a Canadian context: Psychometric properties for a sample of university women. Personality and Individual Differences, 17, 441-444
29. Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332-346
30. Howarth, E. (1972). A factor analysis of selected markers for objective personality factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 7, 451-476
31. Jöreskog, K. G. (1979). Statistical estimation of structural models in longitudinal investigations. In J. R. Nesselroade & B. Baltes (Eds.), Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development (pp 303-351). New York, NY: Academic Press
32. Kishton, J. M., & Widaman, K. F. (1994). Unidimensional versus domain representative parceling of questionnaire items: An empirical example Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 757-765
33. Klein, A. G., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Quasi-maximum likelihood estimation of structural equation models with multiple interaction and quadratic effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42, 647-673
34. Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002) To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 151-173
35. Lord, F. M., & Novick, M. R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
36. Lüdtke, O., Marsh, H. W., Robitzsch, A., & Trautwein, U. (2011). A 2 _ 2 taxonomy of multilevel latent contextual models: Accuracy-bias trade-offs in full and partial error-correction models. Psychological Methods, 16, 444-467
37. MacCallum, R. C. (2003). 2001 Presidential Address: Working with imperfect models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 1, 113-139
38. MacCallum, R. C., & Tucker, L. R. (1991). Representing sources of error in the common-factor model: Implications for theory and practice Psychological Bulletin, 109, 502-511
39. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 4, 84-99
40. Marsh, H. W. (1986). The bias of negatively worded items in rating scales for young children: A cognitive-developmental phenomena. Developmental Psychology, 22, 37-49
41. Marsh, H. W. (2007). Application of confirmatory factor analysis and structural equation modeling in sport/exercise psychology. In G. Tenenbaum & R. C. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp 774-798)
42. 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
43. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390
44. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Balla, J. R., & Grayson, D. (1998). Is more ever too much The number of indicators per factor in confirmatory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 33, 181-220
45. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J McCardle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift to Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum
46. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoffvalues for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341
47. Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322-346
48. Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491
49. Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439-476
50. Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., Parada, R. H., Craven, R. G., & Hamilton, L. R. (2011). Construct validity of the multidimensional structure of bullying and victimization: An application of exploratory structural equation modeling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 701-732
51. Marsh, H. W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self Description Questionnaire III (SDQ III): The construct validity of multidimensional self-concept ratings by late-adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153-174
52. Marsh, H. W., Scalas, L. F., & Nagengast, B. (2010). Longitudinal tests of competing factor structures for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale: Traits, ephemeral artifacts, and stable response styles. Psychological Assessment, 22, 366-381
53. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275-300
54. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., Nagengast, B., & Hau, K.-T. (2012). Structural equation models of latent interaction. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 436-458). New York, NY: Guilford Press
55. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2004). A contemplated revision of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 587-596
56. McCrae, R. R., Zonderman, A. B., Costa, P. T., Jr., Bond, M. H., & Paunonen, S. (1996). Evaluating the replicability of factors in the revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566
57. McDonald, R. P. (2010). Structural models and the art of approximation Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 675-686
58. Meade, A. W., & Kroustalis, C. M. (2006). Problems with item parceling for confirmatory factor analytic tests of measurement invariance. Organizational Research Methods, 9, 369-403
59. Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis and factorial invariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525-543
60. Meredith, W., & Teresi, J. (2006). An essay on measurement and factorial invariance. Medical Care, 44(Suppl. 3), S69-S77
61. Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395-436) Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing
62. Mulaik, S. A. (1972). The foundations of factor analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
63. Muthén, B., & Asparouhov, T. (2012). Bayesian structural equation modeling: A more flexible representation of substantive theory. Psychological Methods, 17, 313-335
64. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2010). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén
65. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
66. Overall, J. E. (1974). Marker variable factor analysis: A regional principal axes solution. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 9, 149-164
67. Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667-696
68. Rogers, W. M., & Schmitt, N. (2004). Parameter recovery and model fit using multidimensional composites: A comparison of four empirical parceling algorithms. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 379-412
69. Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
70. Rushton, J. P., Brainerd, C. J., & Pressley, M. (1983). Behavioral development and construct validity: The principle of aggregation. Psychological Bulletin, 94, 18-38. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.94.1.18
71. Sass, D. A., & Schmitt, T. A. (2010). A comparative investigation of rotation criteria within exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 73-103
72. Sass, D. A., & Smith, P. L. (2006). The effects of parceling unidimensional scales on structural parameter estimates in structural equation modeling Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 566-586
73. Schmitt, T. A., & Sass, D. A. (2011). Rotation criteria and hypothesis testing for exploratory factor analysis: Implications for factor pattern loadings and interfactor correlations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 71, 95-113
74. Sterba, S. K. (2011). Implications of parcel-allocation variability for comparing fit of item-solutions and parcel-solutions. Structural Equation Modeling, 18, 554-577
75. Sterba, S. K., & MacCallum, R. C. (2010). Variability in parameter estimates and model fit across repeated allocations of items to parcels Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 322-358
76. Thissen, D. (2001). Psychometric engineering as art. Psychometrika, 66, 473-485
77. Thurstone, L. L. (1930). The learning function. Journal of General Psychology, 3, 469-493
78. Tukey, J. W. (1961). Discussion, emphasizing the connection between analysis of variance and spectrum analysis. Technometrics, 3, 191-219
79. Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-251
80. von Davier, M. (2008). A general diagnostic model applied to language testing data. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 61, 287-307
81. von Davier, M. (2010). Why sum scores may not tell us all about test takers [Special issue on quantitative research methodology]. Newborn and Infant Nursing Reviews, 10, 27-36
82. Williams, L. J., & O'Boyle, E. H., Jr. (2008). Measurement models for linking latent variables and indicators: A review of human resource management research using parcels. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 233-242
83. Yang, C., Nay, S., & Hoyle, R. H. (2010). Three approaches to using lengthy ordinal scales in structural equation models: Parceling, latent scoring, and shortening scales. Applied Psychological Measurement, 34, 122-142