Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 48, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 936-949

  Li, Cheng Hsien ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS   (United States)

Author keywords

Confirmatory factor analysis; Monte Carlo Simulation; Ordinal data; Robust estimation

Indexed keywords

CHI SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FACTOR ANALYSIS; HUMAN; LEAST SQUARE ANALYSIS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SAMPLE SIZE; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

CHI-SQUARE DISTRIBUTION; DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; FACTOR ANALYSIS, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; LEAST-SQUARES ANALYSIS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84984653418     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7     Document Type: Article

References (48)

1. Beauducel, A., & Herzberg, P. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186–203. doi:10.1207/s15328007sem1302_2
2. Bentler, P. M. (2006). EQS 6 structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.
3. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.
4. Bradley, J. V. (1978). Robustness? British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 58, 430–450.
5. Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematics and Statistical Psychology, 37, 62–83.
6. Coenders, G., Satorra, A., & Saris, W. E. (1997). Alternative approaches to structural modeling of ordinal data: A Monte Carlo study. Structural Equation Modeling, 4, 261–282. doi:10.1080/10705519709540077
7. Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, G. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
8. DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory factor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 327–346.
9. Flora, D. B., & Curran, P. J. (2004). An empirical evaluation of alternative methods of estimation for confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data. Psychological Methods, 9, 466–491.
10. Forero, C. G., & Maydeu-Olivares, A. (2009). Estimation of IRT graded response models: Limited versus full information methods. Psychological Methods, 14, 275–299.
11. Forero, C. G., Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Gallardo-Pujol, D. (2009). Factor analysis with ordinal indicator: A Monte Carlo Study Comparing DWLS and ULS Estimation. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 625–641.
12. Herzog, W., Boomsma, A., & Reinecke, S. (2007). The model-size effect on traditional and modified tests of covariance structures. Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 361–390. doi:10.1080/10705510701301602
13. Hoogland, J. J., & Boomsma, A. (1998). Robustness studies in covariance structure modeling: An overview and meta-analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 26, 329–367.
14. Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14, 6–23.
15. Johnson, D. R., & Creech, J. C. (1983). Ordinal measures in multiple indicator models: A simulation study of categorization error. American Sociological Review, 48, 398–407.
16. Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.
17. Jöreskog, K. G. (2005). Structural equation modeling with ordinal variables using LISREL. Retrieved from www.ssicentral.com/lisrel/techdocs/ordinal.pdf
18. Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1996). Prelis 2: User’s reference guide: A program for multivariate data screening and data summarization. Chicago, IL: Scientific Software.
19. Kaplan, D. (2009). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21. Lei, P. (2009). Evaluating estimation methods for ordinal data in structural equation modeling. Quality and Quantity, 43, 495–507.
22. Li, C.-H. (2012). Validation of the Chinese version of the Life Orientation Test with a robust weighted least squares approach. Psychological Assessment, 24, 770–776. doi:10.1037/a0026612
23. Lubke, G. H., & Muthén, B. O. (2004). Applying multigroup confirmatory factor models for continuous outcomes to Likert scale data complicates meaningful group comparisons. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 514–534.
24. Magnus, J. R., & Neudecker, H. (1986). Symmetry, 0–1 matrices and Jacobians: A review. Econometric Theory, 2, 157–190. doi:10.1017/S0266466600011476
25. Marsh, H. W., Hau, K., 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.
26. Micceri, T. (1989). The unicorn, the normal curve, than other improbable creatures. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 156–166.
27. Muthén, B. O. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115–132.
28. Muthén, B. O. (1993). Goodness of fit with categorical and other non-normal variables. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 205–243). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
29. Muthén, B. O. (2002). Using Mplus Monte Carlo simulation in practice: A note one assessing estimation quality and power in latent variable models. Retrieved from https://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/mc1.pdf
30. Muthén, B. O., du Toit, S. H. C., & Spisic, D. (1997). Robust inference using weighted least squares and quadratic estimating equations in latent variable modeling with categorical and continuous outcomes. Retrieved from http://gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/muthen/articles/Article_075.pdf
31. Muthén, B. O., & 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, 171–180.
32. Muthén, B. O., & Kaplan, D. (1992). A comparison of some methodologies for the factor-analysis of non-normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 45, 19–30.
33. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 599–620. doi:10.1207/S15328007SEM0904_8
34. Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
35. Olsson, U. (1979). Maximum likelihood estimation of the polychoric correlation coefficient. Psychometrika, 44, 443–460.
36. Oranje, A. (2003, April). Comparison of estimation methods in factor analysis with categorical variables: Applications to NAEP data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association (AERA), Chicago, IL.
37. Paxton, P., Curran, P. J., Bollen, K. A., Kirby, J., & Chen, F. (2001). Monte Carlo experiments: Design and implementation. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 287–312.
38. Quiroga, A. M. (1992). Studies of the polychoric correlation and other correlation measures for ordinal variables. Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
39. Raykov, T. (2012). Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 472–492). New York, NY: Guildford Press.
40. Raykov, T., & Marcoulides, G. A. (2006). A first course in structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
41. Rhemtulla, M., Brosseau-Liard, P. É., & Savalei, V. (2012). When can categorical variables be treated as continuous? A comparison of robust continuous and categorical SEM estimation methods under suboptimal conditions. Psychological Methods, 17, 354–373. doi:10.1037/a0029315
42. Rigdon, E. E. (1998). Structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 251–294). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
43. Satorra, A. (1990). Robustness issues in structural equation modeling: A review of recent developments. Quality and Quantity, 24, 367–386.
44. Satorra, C., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg (Eds.), Latent variable analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399–419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
45. Savalei, V. (2010). Expected versus observed information in SEM with incomplete normal and nonnormal data. Psychological Methods, 15, 352–367.
46. Yang-Wallentin, F., Jöreskog, K. G., & Luo, H. (2010). Confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables with misspecified models. Structural Equation Modeling, 17, 392–423. doi:10.1080/10705511.2010.489003
47. Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (1997). Improving parameter tests in covariance structure analysis. Computational Statistics and Data Analysis, 26, 177–198.
48. Yuan, K. H., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Normal theory based test statistics in structural equation modeling. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 51, 289–309.