SavedAdd your journal

Journals / International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education / 2021 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixed-format data

Abdullah Faruk KILIÇ
Nuri DOĞAN
Pages
21–37
Publication Date
2021-03-15
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)

No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes and low factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended to researchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Weighted least squares (WLS), weighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (WLSMV), unweighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (ULSMV), maximum likelihood (ML), robust maximum likelihood (MLR) and Bayesian estimation methods were compared in mixed item response type data via Monte Carlo simulation.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The percentage of polytomous items, distribution of polytomous items, categories of polytomous items, average factor loading, sample size and test length conditions were manipulated.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes and low factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended to researchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Bayesian estimation · Monte-carlo simulations · CFA

Abstract

Weighted least squares (WLS), weighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (WLSMV), unweighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (ULSMV), maximum likelihood (ML), robust maximum likelihood (MLR) and Bayesian estimation methods were compared in mixed item response type data via Monte Carlo simulation. The percentage of polytomous items, distribution of polytomous items, categories of polytomous items, average factor loading, sample size and test length conditions were manipulated. ULSMV and WLSMV were found to be the more accurate methods under all simulation conditions. All methods except WLS had acceptable relative bias and relative standard error bias. No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes and low factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended to researchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.

Özet

Weighted least squares (WLS), weighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (WLSMV), unweighted least squares mean-and-variance-adjusted (ULSMV), maximum likelihood (ML), robust maximum likelihood (MLR) and Bayesian estimation methods were compared in mixed item response type data via Monte Carlo simulation. The percentage of polytomous items, distribution of polytomous items, categories of polytomous items, average factor loading, sample size and test length conditions were manipulated. ULSMV and WLSMV were found to be the more accurate methods under all simulation conditions. All methods except WLS had acceptable relative bias and relative standard error bias. No method gives accurate results with small sample sizes and low factor loading, however, the ULSMV method can be recommended to researchers because it gives more appropriate results in all conditions.

🔖

Cite This Article

KILIÇ, A. F., DOĞAN, N. (2021). Comparison of confirmatory factor analysis estimation methods on mixed-format data. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 21–37. https://ajindex.com/articles/717051

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. 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/10.2307/3151512
  2. 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/10.1080/10705511.2014.859510
  3. 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).
  4. 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
  5. Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118619179
  6. 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/10.1080/10705511.2015.1044653 (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.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0903_2
  7. 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
  8. Dolan, C. V. (1994). Factor analysi