Evaluating statistical fit of confirmatory bifactor models: Updated recommendations and a review of current practice.

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Sijia Li, Victoria Savalei
{"title":"Evaluating statistical fit of confirmatory bifactor models: Updated recommendations and a review of current practice.","authors":"Sijia Li, Victoria Savalei","doi":"10.1037/met0000730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Confirmatory bifactor models have become very popular in psychological applications, but they are increasingly criticized for statistical pitfalls such as tendency to overfit, tendency to produce anomalous results, instability of solutions, and underidentification problems. In part to combat this state of affairs, many different reliability and dimensionality measures have been proposed to help researchers evaluate the quality of the obtained bifactor solution. However, in empirical practice, the evaluation of bifactor models is largely based on structural equation model fit indices. Other critical indicators of solution quality, such as patterns of general and group factor loadings, whether all estimates are interpretable, and values of reliability coefficients, are often not taken into account. In addition, in the methodological literature, some confusion exists about the appropriate interpretation and application of some bifactor reliability coefficients. In this article, we accomplish several goals. First, we review reliability coefficients for bifactor models and their correct interpretations, and we provide expectations for their values. Second, to help steer researchers away from structural equation model fit indices and to improve current practice, we provide a checklist for evaluating the statistical fit of bifactor models. Third, we evaluate the state of current practice by examining 96 empirical articles employing confirmatory bifactor models across different areas of psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20782,"journal":{"name":"Psychological methods","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","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/met0000730","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

Confirmatory bifactor models have become very popular in psychological applications, but they are increasingly criticized for statistical pitfalls such as tendency to overfit, tendency to produce anomalous results, instability of solutions, and underidentification problems. In part to combat this state of affairs, many different reliability and dimensionality measures have been proposed to help researchers evaluate the quality of the obtained bifactor solution. However, in empirical practice, the evaluation of bifactor models is largely based on structural equation model fit indices. Other critical indicators of solution quality, such as patterns of general and group factor loadings, whether all estimates are interpretable, and values of reliability coefficients, are often not taken into account. In addition, in the methodological literature, some confusion exists about the appropriate interpretation and application of some bifactor reliability coefficients. In this article, we accomplish several goals. First, we review reliability coefficients for bifactor models and their correct interpretations, and we provide expectations for their values. Second, to help steer researchers away from structural equation model fit indices and to improve current practice, we provide a checklist for evaluating the statistical fit of bifactor models. Third, we evaluate the state of current practice by examining 96 empirical articles employing confirmatory bifactor models across different areas of psychology. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).

评估验证性双因素模型的统计拟合:更新的建议和当前实践的回顾。
验证性双因素模型在心理学应用中已经变得非常流行,但它们因统计缺陷而受到越来越多的批评,如倾向于过拟合、倾向于产生异常结果、解决方案的不稳定性和识别不足问题。为了解决这个问题,人们提出了许多不同的可靠性和维度度量来帮助研究人员评估获得的双因子解的质量。然而,在实证实践中,双因素模型的评价主要基于结构方程模型拟合指标。解决方案质量的其他关键指标,如一般和组因素负荷的模式,是否所有的估计都是可解释的,以及可靠性系数的值,通常不被考虑在内。此外,在方法学文献中,对于某些双因素信度系数的合理解释和应用存在一些混淆。在本文中,我们实现了几个目标。首先,我们回顾了双因素模型的可靠性系数及其正确解释,并对其值提供了期望。其次,为了引导研究人员远离结构方程模型拟合指标,并改进目前的实践,我们提供了一个评估双因素模型统计拟合的清单。第三,我们通过检查96篇实证文章来评估当前实践的状态,这些文章采用了心理学不同领域的验证性双因素模型。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA,版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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