The higher-order model imposes a proportionality constraint: That is why the bifactor model tends to fit better

Intelligence

Volumn 55, Issue , 2016, Pages 57-68

  Gignac, Gilles E ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Bifactor model; Higher order model; Model fit

Indexed keywords

EID: 84956470822     PISSN: 01602896     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.intell.2016.01.006     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Akaike H. Information theory and an extension of the maximum likelihood principle. Second International Symposium on Information Theory 1973, 267-281. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary. B.N. Petrov, F. Csáki (Eds.).
2. Alwin D.F., Hauser R.M. The decomposition of effects in path analysis. American Sociological Review 1975, 40:37-47.
3. Arbuckle J.L. Amos (Version 21.0) 2012, IBM SPSS, Chicago.
4. Beaujean A.A., Parkin J., Parker S. Comparing Cattell-Horn-Carroll factor models: Differences between bifactor and higher order factor models in predicting language achievement. Psychological Assessment 2014, 26:789-805.
5. Bechtel R.B., Verdugo V.C., de Queiroz Pinheiro J. Environmental belief systems United States, Brazil, and Mexico. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 1999, 30(1):122-128.
6. Browne M.W., MacCallum R.C., Kim C.T., Andersen B.L., Glaser R. When fit indices and residuals are incompatible. Psychological Methods 2002, 7(4):403-421.
7. Brunner M. No g in education?. Learning and Individual Differences 2008, 18(2):152-165.
8. Brunner M., Süß H.-M. Analyzing the reliability of multidimensional measures: An example from intelligence research. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2005, 65:227-240.
9. Burnham K.P., Anderson D.R. Multimodel inference understanding AIC and BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods & Research 2004, 33(2):261-304.
10. Canivez G.L. Bifactor modeling in construct validation of multifactored tests: Implications for understanding multidimensional constructs and test interpretation. Principles and methods of test construction: Standards and recent advancements 2016, Hogrefe Publishers, Gottingen, Germany, (in press). K. Schweizer, C. DiStefano (Eds.).
11. Carroll J.B. Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies 1993, Cambridge University Press, New York.
12. Chen F.F., Hayes A., Carver C.S., Laurenceau J.P., Zhang Z. Modeling general and specific variance in multifaceted constructs: A comparison of the bifactor model to other approaches. Journal of Personality 2012, 80(1):219-251.
13. Chen F.F., West S.G., Sousa K.H. A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2006, 41(2):189-225.
14. Crawford J.R., Deary I.J., Allan K.M., Gustafsson J.E. Evaluating competing models of the relationship between inspection time and psychometric intelligence. Intelligence 1998, 26(1):27-42.
15. Gibbons R.D., Bock R.D., Hedeker D., Weiss D.J., Segawa E., Bhaumik D.K., Stover A. Full-information item bifactor analysis of graded response data. Applied Psychological Measurement 2007, 31(1):4-19.
16. Gignac G.E. Revisiting the factor structure of the WAIS-R insights through nested factor modeling. Assessment 2005, 12(3):320-329.
17. Gignac G.E. A confirmatory examination of the factor structure of the Multidimensional Aptitude Battery (MAB): Contrasting oblique, higher-order, and nested factor models. Educational and Psychological Measurement 2006, 66(1):136-145.
18. 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 2006, 27:73-86.
19. Gignac G.E. Multi-factor modeling in individual differences research: Some recommendations and suggestions. Personality and Individual Differences 2007, 42(1):37-48.
20. Gignac G.E. Higher-order models versus direct hierarchical models: g as superordinate or breadth factor?. Psychology Science 2008, 50(1):21-43.
21. Gignac G.E. Fluid intelligence shares closer to 60% of its variance with working memory capacity and is a better indicator of general intelligence. Intelligence 2014, 47:122-133.
22. Gignac G.E., Watkins M.W. Bifactor modeling and the estimation of model-based reliability in the WAIS-IV. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2013, 48(5):639-662.
23. Gignac G.E., Watkins M. There may be nothing special about the association between working memory capacity and fluid intelligence. Intelligence 2015, 52:18-23.
24. Gignac G.E., Palmer B.R., Manocha R., Stough C. An examination of the factor structure of the Schutte self-report emotional intelligence (SSREI) scale via confirmatory factor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences 2005, 39(6):1029-1042.
25. Gignac G.E. Dynamic mutualism versus g factor theory: An empirical test. Intelligence 2014, 42:89-97.
26. Golay P., Lecerf T. Orthogonal higher order structure and confirmatory factor analysis of the French Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-III). Psychological Assessment 2011, 23:143-152.
27. Gruhl J., Erosheva E.A., Crane P.K. A semiparametric approach to mixed outcome latent variable models: Estimating the association between cognition and regional brain volumes. Annals of Applied Statistics 2013, 7(4):2361-2383.
28. Gustafsson J., Balke G. General and specific abilities as predictors of school achievement. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1993, 28:407-434.
29. Gustafsson J.E. A unifying model for the structure of intellectual abilities. Intelligence 1984, 8(3):179-203.
30. Holzinger K.J., Swineford F. The bi-factor method. Psychometrika 1937, 2:42-54.
31. Hu L.T., Bentler P.M. Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 1999, 6(1):1-55.
32. Humphreys L.G. The organization of human abilities. American Psychologist 1962, 17:475-483.
33. Jensen A.R., Weng L.J. What is a good g?. Intelligence 1994, 18(3):231-258.
34. Keith T.Z. Using confirmatory factor analysis to aid in understanding the constructs measured by intelligence tests. Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues 2005, 581-614. Guilford Press, New York. 2nd ed. D.P. Flanagan, P.L. Harrison (Eds.).
35. MacCann C., Joseph D.L., Newman D.A., Roberts R.D. Emotional intelligence is a second-stratum factor of intelligence: Evidence from hierarchical and bifactor models. Emotion 2014, 14(2):358-374.
36. Marsh H.W., Balla J. Goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis: The effects of sample size and model parsimony. Quality and Quantity 1994, 28(2):185-217.
37. Marsh H.W., Hau K.T., Grayson D. Goodness of fit in structural equation models. Contemporary psychometrics: A Festschrift for Roderick P. McDonald 2005, 225-340. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. A. Maydeu-Olivares, J.J. McArdle (Eds.).
38. Maydeu-Olivares A., Coffman D.L. Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods 2006, 11(4):344-362.
39. McDonald R.P. Test theory: a unified treatment 1999, Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ.
40. Mohlman J., Zinbarg R.E. The structure and correlates of anxiety sensitivity in older adults. Psychological Assessment 2000, 12(4):440.
41. Morgan G.B., Hodge K.J., Wells K.E., Watkins M.W. Are Fit indices biased in favor of bi-factor models in cognitive ability research?: a comparison of fit in correlated factors, higher-order, and bi-factor models via Monte Carlo simulations. Journal of Intelligence 2015, 3(1):2-20.
42. Morin A.J., Arens A.K., Marsh H.W. A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling 2016, (in press).
43. Mulaik S.A., Quartetti D.A. First order or higher order general factor?. Structural Equation Modeling 1997, 4:193-211.
44. Murray A.L., Johnson W. The limitations of model fit in comparing the bi-factor versus higher-order models of human cognitive ability structure. Intelligence 2013, 41(5):407-422.
45. Raftery A.E. Bayesian model selection in social research. Sociological Methodology 1995, 25:111-163.
46. Reeve C.L., Blacksmith N. Identifying g: A review of current factor analytic practices in the science of mental abilities. Intelligence 2009, 37(5):487-494.
47. Reise S.P. The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research 2012, 47:667-696.
48. Reynolds M.R., Keith T.Z. Measurement and statistical issues in child psychological assessment. Oxford handbook of child and adolescent assessment 2013, 48-83. Oxford University Press, New York. D.H. Soklofske, V.L. Schwean, C.R. Reynolds (Eds.).
49. Rindskopf D., Rose T. Some theory and applications of confirmatory second-order factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research 1988, 23(1):51-67.
50. Rodriguez A., Reise S.P., Haviland M.G. Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psychological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment 2016, (in press).
51. Schmid J., Leiman J.M. The development of hierarchical factor solutions. Psychometrika 1957, 22:53-61.
52. Schmiedek F., Li S.C. Toward an alternative representation for disentangling age-associated differences in general and specific cognitive abilities. Psychology and Aging 2004, 19(1):40-56.
53. Schwarz G. Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics 1978, 6:461-464.
54. Smith R.H., Parrott W.G., Diener E.F., Hoyle R.H., Kim S.H. Dispositional envy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1999, 25(8):1007-1020.
55. Tucker L.R., Lewis C. A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 1973, 38:1-10.
56. Van Der Maas H.L., Dolan C.V., Grasman R.P., Wicherts J.M., Huizenga H.M., Raijmakers M.E. A dynamical model of general intelligence: the positive manifold of intelligence by mutualism. Psychological Review 2006, 113(4):842-861.
57. Watkins M.W., Kush J.C. Confirmatory factor analysis of the WISC-III for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2002, 20(1):4-19.
58. Wechsler D. Wechsler adult intelligence scale-Fourth edition: Technical and interpretive manual 2008, Pearson Assessment, San Antonio, TX.
59. Weiss L.G., Keith T.Z., Zhu J., Chen H. Technical and practical issues in the structure and clinical invariance of the Wechsler Scales: A rejoinder to commentaries. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2013, 31(2):235-243.
60. Yung Y.F., McLeod L.D., Thissen D. On the relationship between the higher-order factor model and the hierarchical factor model. Psychometrika 1999, 64:113-128.
61. h for structures containing two group factors: Perils and prospects. Applied Psychological Measurement 2007, 31(2):135-157.