No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes andlow factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended toresearchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Weighted least squares (WLS), weighted least squares mean-andvariance-adjusted (WLSMV), unweighted least squares mean-and-varianceadjusted (ULSMV), maximum likelihood (ML), robust maximum likelihood(MLR) and Bayesian estimation methods were compared in mixed item responsetype data via Monte Carlo simulation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The percentage of polytomous items,distribution of polytomous items, categories of polytomous items, average factorloading, sample size and test length conditions were manipulated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes andlow factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended toresearchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters
Abstract
Weighted least squares (WLS), weighted least squares mean-andvariance-adjusted (WLSMV), unweighted least squares mean-and-varianceadjusted (ULSMV), maximum likelihood (ML), robust maximum likelihood(MLR) and Bayesian estimation methods were compared in mixed item responsetype data via Monte Carlo simulation. The percentage of polytomous items,distribution of polytomous items, categories of polytomous items, average factorloading, sample size and test length conditions were manipulated. ULSMV andWLSMV were found to be the more accurate methods under all simulationconditions. All methods except WLS had acceptable relative bias and relativestandard error bias. No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes andlow factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended toresearchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.
🔖
Cite This Article
Doğan, N., Kılıç, A. F. (2022). Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixedformat data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 21–37. https://ajindex.com/articles/540103
AERA, APA, NCME, American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), & National Council on Measurement In Education (NCME). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association. Babakus, E., Ferguson, C. E., & Jöreskog, K. G. (1987). The sensitivity of confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis to violations of measurement scale and distributional assumptions. Journal of Marketing Research, 24(2), 222-228. https://doi.org/10.2307/31 51512 Bandalos, D. L. (2014). Relative performance of categorical diagonally weighted least squares and robust maximum likelihood estimation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(1), 102-116. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.85951 0 Bandalos, D. L., & Leite, W. (2013). Use of Monte Carlo studies in structural equation modeling research. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 625-666).
Information Age. 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: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(2), 186-203. https://doi.org/10.1207 /s15328007sem1302_2 Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179
Byrne, B. M. (2016). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming (3rd ed.). Routledge. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Depaoli, S., & Scott, S. (2015). Frequentist and bayesian estimation of CFA measurement models with mixed item response types: A monte carlo investigation. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, (September), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/1070 5511.2015.1044653 (Retraction published 2015, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 318) DiStefano, C. (2002). The impact of categorization with confirmatory cactor analysis. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 9(3), 327-346. https://doi.or g/10.1207/S15328007SEM0903_2 DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23(3), 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290502300303