Fit indices are insensitive to multiple minor violations of perfect simple structure in confirmatory factor analysis.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Victoria Savalei, Muhua Huang
{"title":"Fit indices are insensitive to multiple minor violations of perfect simple structure in confirmatory factor analysis.","authors":"Victoria Savalei, Muhua Huang","doi":"10.1037/met0000718","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Classic confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models are theoretically superior to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) models because they specify that each indicator only measures one factor. In contrast, in EFA, all loadings are permitted to be nonzero. In this article, we show that when fit to EFA structures and other models with many cross-loadings, classic CFA models often produce excellent fit. A key requirement for breaking this pattern is to have highly variable ratios of main loadings to corresponding cross-loadings in the true data-generating structure-and strongest misfit results when cross-loadings are of mixed sign. We show mathematically that EFA structures that are rotatable to a CFA representation are those where the main loadings and the cross-loadings are proportional for each group of indicators. With the help of a ShinyApp, we show that unless these proportionality constraints are violated severely in the true data structure, CFA models will fit well to most true models containing many cross-loadings by commonly accepted fit index cutoffs. We also show that fit indices are nonmonotone functions of the number of positive cross-loadings, and the relationship becomes monotone only when cross-loadings are of mixed sign. Overall, our findings indicate that good fit of a CFA model rules out that the true model is an EFA model with highly variable ratios of main and cross-loadings, but does not rule out most other plausible EFA structures. We discuss the implications of these findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological methods","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000718","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Classic confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models are theoretically superior to exploratory factor analysis (EFA) models because they specify that each indicator only measures one factor. In contrast, in EFA, all loadings are permitted to be nonzero. In this article, we show that when fit to EFA structures and other models with many cross-loadings, classic CFA models often produce excellent fit. A key requirement for breaking this pattern is to have highly variable ratios of main loadings to corresponding cross-loadings in the true data-generating structure-and strongest misfit results when cross-loadings are of mixed sign. We show mathematically that EFA structures that are rotatable to a CFA representation are those where the main loadings and the cross-loadings are proportional for each group of indicators. With the help of a ShinyApp, we show that unless these proportionality constraints are violated severely in the true data structure, CFA models will fit well to most true models containing many cross-loadings by commonly accepted fit index cutoffs. We also show that fit indices are nonmonotone functions of the number of positive cross-loadings, and the relationship becomes monotone only when cross-loadings are of mixed sign. Overall, our findings indicate that good fit of a CFA model rules out that the true model is an EFA model with highly variable ratios of main and cross-loadings, but does not rule out most other plausible EFA structures. We discuss the implications of these findings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Psychological methods
Psychological methods PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
7.10%
发文量
159
期刊介绍: Psychological Methods is devoted to the development and dissemination of methods for collecting, analyzing, understanding, and interpreting psychological data. Its purpose is the dissemination of innovations in research design, measurement, methodology, and quantitative and qualitative analysis to the psychological community; its further purpose is to promote effective communication about related substantive and methodological issues. The audience is expected to be diverse and to include those who develop new procedures, those who are responsible for undergraduate and graduate training in design, measurement, and statistics, as well as those who employ those procedures in research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信