SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri / 2016 / Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1

The Effect of Sample Size on Parametric and Nonparametric Factor Analytical Methods*

ÖMÜR KAYA KALKAN
HÜLYA KELECİOĞLU
Pages
153–171
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Although DETECT and NOHARM determined the multidimensionality at acceptable level for the 50 sample size, they yielded the most consistent results at sample sizes of 1000 and above.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Linear factor analysis models used to examine constructs underlying the responses are not very suitable for dichotomous or polytomous response formats.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Therefore, we considered parameters obtained from the NOHARM and FACTOR programs (which use parametric methods) and from the DETECT and DIMTEST programs (which use nonparametric methods) for different sample sizes of a real large dataset (50, 80, 100, 160, 200, 300, 500, 1000, 3000, 5000).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Although DETECT and NOHARM determined the multidimensionality at acceptable level for the 50 sample size, they yielded the most consistent results at sample sizes of 1000 and above.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:50 sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Linear factor analysis models used to examine constructs underlying the responses are not very suitable for dichotomous or polytomous response formats. The associated problems cannot be eliminated by polychoric or tetrachoric correlations in place of the Pearson correlation. Therefore, we considered parameters obtained from the NOHARM and FACTOR programs (which use parametric methods) and from the DETECT and DIMTEST programs (which use nonparametric methods) for different sample sizes of a real large dataset (50, 80, 100, 160, 200, 300, 500, 1000, 3000, 5000). A parallel analysis (PA) based on the tetrachoric correlation with the FACTOR program produced inconsistent results among the sampling sizes. However, the analyses based on the Pearson correlation could not adequately determine the dimension numbers. Although DETECT and NOHARM determined the multidimensionality at acceptable level for the 50 sample size, they yielded the most consistent results at sample sizes of 1000 and above.

🔖

Cite This Article

KALKAN, Ö. K., KELECİOĞLU, H. (2016). The Effect of Sample Size on Parametric and Nonparametric Factor Analytical Methods*. Kuram ve Uygulamada Eğitim Bilimleri, Cilt: 16 - Sayı: 1, 153–171. https://ajindex.com/articles/346945

References (11)

  1. Ackerman, T. A., Gierl, M. J., & Walker, C. M. (2003). Using multidimensional item response theory to evaluate educational and psychological tests. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 37-51.
  2. Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997).
  3. Psychological testing. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall. Beauducel, A. (2001). Problems with parallel analysis in data sets with oblique simple structure. Methods of Psychological Research Online, 6(2), 141-157.
  4. Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., & Muraki, E. (1988). Full-information item factor analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12(3), 261-280.
  5. Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  6. Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., & Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2010). Sosyal bilimler için çok değişkenli istatistik SPSS ve Lisrel uygulamaları [Multivariate statistics for the social sciences SPSS and LISREL applications]. Ankara, Turkey: Pegem Akademi. Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. New Jersey, NJ: Hillsdale Erlbaum. Cotton, J. W., Campbell, D. T., & Malone, R. D. (1957). The relationship between factorial composition of test items and measures of test reliability. Psychometrika, 22(4), 347-357. Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 4(1), 117-128.
  7. Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
  8. Knol, D. L., & Berger, M. P. F. (1991). Empirical comparison between factor analysis and multidimensional item response models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26, 457-477.
  9. Kolen, M. J., & Brennan, R. L. (2004). Test equating, scaling, and linking. New York, NY: Springer. Lee, S. H. (2007). Multidimensional item response theory: A SAS MDIRT macro and empirical study of PIAT MATH Test (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Oklahoma, Oklahoma). Retrieved from https://shareok.org/bitstream/handle/11244/1156/3255213.PDF?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
  10. Leech, N. L., Barrett, K. C., & Morgan, G. A. (2005). SPSS for intermediate statistics: Use and interpretation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2006). FACTOR: A computer program to fit the exploratory factor analysis model. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 38, 88-91.
  11. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). Manual of the Program Factor v.9.20. Departament de Psicologia, Universitat Rovira i Virgili, Tarragona, Spain. MacCallum, R. C., Widaman, K. F., Zhang, S., & Hong, S. (199