在验证性因子分析中,拟合指标对完美简单结构的多次轻微违规不敏感。

IF 7.6 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Victoria Savalei, Muhua Huang
{"title":"在验证性因子分析中,拟合指标对完美简单结构的多次轻微违规不敏感。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

经典的验证性因子分析(CFA)模型在理论上优于探索性因子分析(EFA)模型,因为它们规定每个指标只测量一个因素。相反,在EFA中,所有加载都允许为非零。在本文中,我们表明,当拟合EFA结构和其他具有许多交叉加载的模型时,经典的CFA模型通常会产生良好的拟合。打破这种模式的一个关键要求是,在真正的数据生成结构中,主加载与相应的交叉加载的比例高度可变——当交叉加载为混合符号时,会出现最严重的不匹配结果。我们在数学上表明,可旋转到CFA表示的EFA结构是那些主要负载和交叉负载对每组指标成比例的结构。在ShinyApp的帮助下,我们表明,除非这些比例约束在真实数据结构中被严重违反,否则CFA模型将通过普遍接受的拟合指标截止点很好地拟合大多数包含许多交叉加载的真实模型。我们还证明了拟合指标是正交叉加载次数的非单调函数,只有当交叉加载为混合符号时,拟合指标才变为单调关系。总体而言,我们的研究结果表明,CFA模型的良好拟合排除了真实模型是具有高度可变比例的主要和交叉负载的EFA模型,但并不排除大多数其他合理的EFA结构。我们将讨论这些发现的含义。(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。
Fit indices are insensitive to multiple minor violations of perfect simple structure in confirmatory factor analysis.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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