Application of Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Equation Modeling in Sport and Exercise Psychology

Handbook of Sport Psychology: Third Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2012, Pages 774-798

  Marsh, Herbert ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; Exercise psychology; Multilevel analysis; Sport; Structural equation modeling

Indexed keywords

EID: 84886105748     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1002/9781118270011.ch35     Document Type: Chapter

References (106)

1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
2. Bandalos, D. L., & Finney, S. J. (2001). Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E.New developments and techniques (pp. 269-296). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indices in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
4. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.
5. Boomsma, A. (1982). Robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In K. G. Jöreskog & H. Wold (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Pt. 1. Causality, structure, prediction (pp. 149-173). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
6. Boomsma, A. (2000). Reporting analyses of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 7, 461-483.
7. 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.
8. Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
9. Byrne, B. M. (2003). Testing for equivalent self-concept measurement across culture: Issues, caveats, and application. In H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), International advances in self research (Vol. 1, pp. 291-314). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.
10. Byrne, B. M., Shavelson, R. J., & Muthén, B. (1989). Testing for the equivalence of factor covariance and mean structures: The issue of partial measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 456-466.
11. Calsyn, R. J., & Kenny, D. A. (1977). Self-concept of ability and perceived evaluation of others: Cause or effect of academic achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 136-145.
12. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81-105.
13. Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2001). The effects of model parsimony and sampling error on the fit of structural equation models. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 236-264.
14. Collins, L. M., Schafer, J. L., & Kam, C.-M. (2001). A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. Psychological Methods, 6, 330-351.
15. Cudeck, R., & Browne, M. W. (1983). Cross-validation of covariance structures. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18, 147-167.
16. 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, 119-144.
17. Duda, J. L. (1993). Goals: A social-cognitive approach to the study of achievement motivation in sport. In R. N. Single, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 421-436). New York: Macmillan.
18. Duda, J. L. (2001). Achievement goal research in sport: Pushing the boundaries and clarifying some misunderstandings. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 129-182). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
19. Enders, C. K. (2006). Analyzing structural equation models with missing data. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 313-344). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
20. Finney, S. J., & DiStefano, C. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-312). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
21. Fleishman, F. A. (1964). The structure and measurement of physical fitness. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The Physical Self-Perception Profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 11, 408-430.
23. Gauvin, L., & Russell, S. J. (1993). Sport-specific and culturally adapted measures in sport and exercise psychology research: Issues and strategies. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 891-900). New York: Macmillan.
24. Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1993). Monte Carlo evaluations of goodness-of-fit indices for structural equation models. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 40-65). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
25. Gill, D. (1993). Competitiveness and competitive orientation in sport. In R. N. Single, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 314-327). New York: Macmillan.
26. Gill, D. L., Dzewaltowski, D. A., & Deeter, T. E. (1988). The relationship of competitiveness and achievement orientation to participation in sport and nonsport activities. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 139-150.
27. Graham, J. W., & Hoffer, S. M. (2000). Multiple imputation in multivariate research. In T. D. Little, K. U. Schnable, & J. Baumert (Eds.), Modeling longitudinal and multilevel data: Practical issues, applied approaches, and specific examples (pp. 201-218). Erlbaum: Mahwah, NJ.
28. Hancock, G. R. (2006). Power analysis in covariance structure modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 69-115). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2006). Structural equation modeling: A second course. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30. Hau, K. T., & Marsh, H. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327-351.
31. Hershberger, S. L. (2006). The problem of equivalent structural models. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 13-42). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
32. Hoyle, R. H., & Panter, A. T. (1995). Writing about structural equation models. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 158-176). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424-453.
34. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indices in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
35. Hu, L., Bentler, P. M., & Kano, Y. (1992). Can test statistics in covariance structure analysis be trusted? Psychological Bulletin, 112, 351-362.
36. 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: Academic Press.
37. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1988). LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications (2nd ed.). Chicago: SPSS.
38. Kaplan, D. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
39. Kline, R. B. (2006). Reverse arrow dynamics: Formative measurement and feedback loops. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 43-68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
40. Little, R. J. A., & Rubin, D. B. (1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: Wiley.
41. MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
42. MacCallum, R. C., & Tucker, L. B. (1991). Representing sources of error in the common factor model: Implications for theory and practice. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 502-511.
43. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (1999). Sample size in factor analysis. Psychological-Methods, 4, 84-99.
44. MacKinnon, D. P., Lockwood, C. M., Hoffman, J. M., West, S. G., & Sheets, V. (2002). A comparison of methods to test mediation and other intervening variable effects. Psychological Methods, 7, 83-104.
45. Marsh, H. W. (1989). Confirmatory factor analyses of multitrait-multimethod data: Many problems and a few solutions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 13, 335-361.
46. Marsh, H. W. (1990). The causal ordering of academic selfconcept and academic achievement: A multiwave, longitudinal panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 646-656.
47. Marsh, H. W. (1993). The multidimensional structure of physical fitness: Invariance over gender and age. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 64, 256-273.
48. Marsh, H. W. (1994). Sport motivation orientations: Beware of the jingle-jangle fallacies. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 365-380.
49. Marsh, H. W. (1996). Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Stability and discriminant validity. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 67, 249-264.
50. Marsh, H. W. (1997). The measurement of physical self-concept: A construct validation approach. In K. Fox (Ed.), The physical self-concept: From motivation to well-being (pp. 27-58). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
51. Marsh, H. W., Asci, F. H., & Tomás-Marco, I. (2002). Multitraitmultimethod analyses of two physical self-concept instruments: A cross-cultural perspective. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 24, 99-119.
52. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & Hau, K. T. (1996). An evaluation of incremental fit indices: A clarification of mathematical and empirical processes. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling techniques (pp. 315-353). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
53. Marsh, H. W., Balla, J. R., & McDonald, R. P. (1988). Goodnessof-fit indexes in confirmatory factor analysis: The effect of sample size. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 391-410.
54. Marsh, H. W., & Byrne, B. M. (1993). Do we see ourselves as others infer? A comparison of self-other agreement on multiple dimensions of self-concept from two continents. Australian Journal of Psychology, 45, 49-58.
55. Marsh, H. W., Byrne, B. M., & Yeung, A. S. (1999). Causal ordering of academic self-concept and achievement: Reanalysis of a pioneering study and revised recommendations. Educational Psychologist, 34, 155-167.
56. Marsh, H. W., Chanal, J. P., Sarrazin, P. G., & Bois, J. E. (2006). Self-belief does make a difference: A reciprocal effects model of the causal ordering of physical self-concept and gymnastics performance. Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 101-111.
57. Marsh, H. W., & Craven, R. G. (2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 133-163.
58. Marsh, H. W., Craven, R. G., Hinkley, J. D., & Debus, R. L. (2003). Evaluation of the big-two-factor theory of motivation orientation: An evaluation of jingle-jangle fallacies. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38, 189-224.
59. Marsh, H. W., Dowson, M., Pietsch, J., & Walker, R. (2004). Why multicollinearity matters: A re-examination of relations between self-efficacy, self-concept and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 518-522.
60. Marsh, H. W., Ellis, L., Parada, L., Richards, G., & Heubeck, B. G. (2005). A short version of the Self-DescriptionQuestionnaire-II: Operationalizing criteria for short-form evaluation with new applications of confirmatory factor analyses. Psychological Assessment, 17, 81-102.
61. Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1994). Longitudinal stability of latent means and individual differences: A unified approach. Structural Equation Modeling, 1, 317-359.
62. Marsh, H. W., & Grayson, D. (1995). Latent-variable models of multitrait-multimethod data. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Issues and applications (pp. 177-198). Newbury, CA: Sage.
63. Marsh, H. W., & Hau, K.-T. (1996). Assessing goodness of fit: Is parsimony always desirable? Journal of Experimental Education, 64, 364-390.
64. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., Artelt, C., Baumert, J., & Peschar, J. L. (in press). OECD's brief self-report measure of educational psychology's most useful affective constructs: Crosscultural, psychometric comparisons across 25 countries. International Journal of Testing.
65. 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.
66. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Grayson, D. (2005). Goodness of fit evaluation in structural equation modeling. In A. Maydeu-Olivares & J. McArdle (Eds.), Contemporary psychometrics: A festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald (pp. 275-340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
67. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K.-T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralising Hu & Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
68. Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). The application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First and higher order factor structures and their invariance across age groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97, 562-582.
69. Marsh, H. W., Martin, A. J., & Hau, K.-T. (2006). A multiple method perspective on self-concept research in educational psychology: A construct validity approach. In M. Eid & E. Diener (Eds.), Handbook of psychological measurement: A multimethod perspective (pp. 441-456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
70. Marsh, H. W., & O'Neill, R. (1984). Self-Description Questionnaire-III: The construct validity of multidimensional selfconcept ratings by late adolescents. Journal of Educational Measurement, 21, 153-174.
71. Marsh, H. W., Papaioannou, A., & Theodorakis, Y. (2006). Causal ordering of physical self-concept and exercise behavior: Reciprocal effects model and the influence of physical education teachers. Health Psychology, 25, 316-328.
72. Marsh, H. W., & Peart, N. (1988). Competitive and cooperative physical fitness training programs for girls: Effects on physical fitness and on multidimensional self-concepts. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 10, 390-407.
73. Marsh, H. W., & Perry, C. (2005). Does a positive self-concept contribute to winning gold medals in elite swimming? The causal ordering of elite athlete self-concept and championship performances. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 27, 71-91.
74. Marsh, H. W., & Redmayne, R. S. (1994). A multidimensional physical self-concept and its relation to multiple components of physical fitness. Journal of Sports and Exercise Psychology, 16, 45-55.
75. Marsh, H. W., Richards, G. E., Johnson, S., Roche, L., & Tremayne, P. (1994). Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Psychometric properties and a multitrait-multimethod analysis of relations to existing instruments. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 16, 270-305.
76. Marsh, H. W., Tomás-Marco, I., & Asci, F. H. (2002). Crosscultural validity of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: Comparison of factor structures in Australia, Spain, and Turkey. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 73(3), 257-270.
77. Marsh, H. W., Tracey, D. K., & Craven, R. G. (in press). Multidimensional self-concept structure for preadolescents with mild intellectual disabilities: A hybrid multigroup-mimic approach to factorial invariance and latent mean differences. Educational and Psychological Measurement.
78. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.-T. (2004). Structural equation models of latent interactions: Evaluation of alternative estimation strategies and indicator construction. Psychological Methods, 9, 275-300.
79. Marsh, H. W., Wen, Z., & Hau, K.-T. (2006). Structural equation models of latent interaction and quadratic effects. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 225-265). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
80. Marsh, H. W., & Yeung, A. S. (1997). Organization of children's academic self-perceptions: Reanalysis and counterinterpretations of confirmatory factor analysis results. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 752-759.
81. McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7, 64-82.
82. McDonald, R. P., & Marsh, H. W. (1990). Choosing a multivariate model: Noncentrality and goodness-of-fit. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 247-255.
83. Millsap, R. E. (2002). Structural equation modeling: A user's guide. In F. Drasgow & N. Schmitt (Eds.), Advances in measurement and data analyses (pp. 257-301). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
84. Muthén, B., & Kaplan, D. (1985). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non-normal Likert variables. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 171-189.
85. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. (2004). M-plus user's guide (3rd ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
86. Pearl, J. (2000). Causality: Models, reasoning and inference. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
87. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
88. Peugh, J. L., & Enders, C. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74, 525-556.
89. Pietsch, J., Walker, R., & Chapman, E. (2003). The relationship among self-concept, self-efficacy, and performance in mathematics during secondary school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 589-603.
90. Raykov, T., & Penev, S. (1999). On structural equation model equivalence. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 199-244.
91. Richards, G. E. (1988). Physical Self Concept Scale. Sydney: Australian Outward Bound Foundation.
92. Roberts, G. C. (1993). Motivation in sport: Understanding and enhancing the motivation and achievement of children. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 405-420). New York: Macmillan.
93. Schutz, R. W., & Gessaroli, M. E. (1993). Use, misuse and disuse of psychometrics in sport psychology research. In R. N. Singer, M. Murphy, & L. K. Tennant (Eds.), Handbook of research on sport psychology (pp. 901-917). New York: Macmillan.
94. Segall, M. H., Lonner, W. J., & Berry, J. W. (1998). Cross-cultural psychology as a scholarly discipline: On the flowering of culture in behavioral research. American Psychologist, 53, 1101-1110.
95. Shah, R., & Goldstein, S. M. (2006). Use of structural equation modeling in operations management research: Looking back and forward. Journal of Operations Management, 24, 148-169.
96. Shavelson, R. J., Hubner, J. J., & Stanton, G. C. (1976). Selfconcept: Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational Research, 46, 407-441.
97. Steiger, J. H. (2002). When constraints interact: A caution about reference variables, identification constraints, and scale dependencies in structural equation modeling. Psychological Methods, 7, 210-227.
98. Steiger, J. H., & Lind, J. C. (1980, May). Statistically-based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Psychometrika Society meeting, Iowa City, IA.
99. Thompson, M. S. (2006). Evaluating between-group differences in latent variable means. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Introduction to structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 119-170). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
100. Tomás-Marco, I., González-Romá, V., & Marsh, H. W. (2005). Testing for item and factor parameter invariance on a Spanish version of the Physical Self-Description Questionnaire: An application of mean and covariance structure analysis. Unpublished manuscript, University of Valencia, Spain.
101. Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). The reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1-10.
102. Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relations between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111-133.
103. Velicer, W. F., & Fava, J. L. (1998). Effects of variable and subject sampling on factor pattern recovery. Psychological Methods, 3, 231-251.
104. West, S. G., Finch, J. F., & Curran, P. J. (1995). Structural equation models with non-normal variables: Problems and remedies. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 56-75). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
105. Widaman, K. F. (1985). Hierarchically nested covariance structure models for multitrait-multimethod data. Applied Psychological Measurement, 9, 1-26.
106. Wolfle, L. M. (1999). Sewall Wright on the method of path coefficients: An annotated bibliography. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6, 280-291.