When Are Multidimensional Data Unidimensional Enough for Structural Equation Modeling? An Evaluation of the DETECT Multidimensionality Index

In structural equation modeling (SEM), researchers need to evaluate whether item response data, which are often multidimensional, can be modeled with a unidimensional measurement model without seriously biasing the parameter estimates. This issue is commonly addressed through testing the fit of a unidimensional model specification, a strategy previously determined to be problematic. As an alternative to the use of fit indexes, we considered the utility of a statistical tool that was expressly designed to assess the degree of departure from unidimensionality in a data set. Specifically, we evaluated the ability of the DETECT “essential unidimensionality” index to predict the bias in parameter estimates that results from misspecifying a unidimensional model when the data are multidimensional. We generated multidimensional data from bifactor structures that varied in general factor strength, number of group factors, and items per group factor; a unidimensional measurement model was then fit and parameter bias recorded. Although DETECT index values were generally predictive of parameter bias, in many cases, the degree of bias was small even though DETECT indicated significant multidimensionality. Thus we do not recommend the stand-alone use of DETECT benchmark values to either accept or reject a unidimensional measurement model. However, when DETECT was used in combination with additional indexes of general factor strength and group factor structure, parameter bias was highly predictable. Recommendations for judging the severity of potential model misspecifications in practice are provided.     

Assessing the Sensitivity of Weighted Least Squares Model Fit Indexes to Local Dependence in Item Response Theory Models

Given the relationships of item response theory (IRT) models to confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) models, IRT model misspecifications might be detectable through model fit indexes commonly used in categorical CFA. The purpose of this study is to investigate the sensitivity of weighted least squares with adjusted means and variance (WLSMV)-based root mean square error of approximation, comparative fit index, and Tucker–Lewis Index model fit indexes to IRT models that are misspecified due to local dependence (LD). It was found that WLSMV-based fit indexes have some functional relationships to parameter estimate bias in 2-parameter logistic models caused by violations of LD. Continued exploration into these functional relationships and development of LD-detection methods based on such relationships could hold much promise for providing IRT practitioners with global information on violations of local independence.     

Multiple-Group Factor Analysis Alignment

This article presents a new method for multiple-group confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), referred to as the alignment method. The alignment method can be used to estimate group-specific factor means and variances without requiring exact measurement invariance. A strength of the method is the ability to conveniently estimate models for many groups. The method is a valuable alternative to the currently used multiple-group CFA methods for studying measurement invariance that require multiple manual model adjustments guided by modification indexes. Multiple-group CFA is not practical with many groups due to poor model fit of the scalar model and too many large modification indexes. In contrast, the alignment method is based on the configural model and essentially automates and greatly simplifies measurement invariance analysis. The method also provides a detailed account of parameter invariance for every model parameter in every group.     

Measurement Bias Detection Through Factor Analysis

Assessing the correctness of a structural equation model is essential to avoid drawing incorrect conclusions from empirical research. In the past, the chi-square test was recommended for assessing the correctness of the model but this test has been criticized because of its sensitivity to sample size. As a reaction, an abundance of fit indexes have been developed. The result of these developments is that structural equation modeling packages are now producing a large list of fit measures. One would think that this progression has led to a clear understanding of evaluating models with respect to model misspecifications. In this article we question the validity of approaches for model evaluation based on overall goodness-of-fit indexes. The argument against such usage is that they do not provide an adequate indication of the “size” of the model's misspecification. That is, they vary dramatically with the values of incidental parameters that are unrelated with the misspecification in the model. This is illustrated using simple but fundamental models. As an alternative method of model evaluation, we suggest using the expected parameter change in combination with the modification index (MI) and the power of the MI test.     

Sensitivity of Fit Indexes to Misspecified Structural or Measurement Model Components: Rationale of Two-Index Strategy Revisited

In previous research (Hu & Bentler, 1998, 1999), 2 conclusions were drawn: standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) was the most sensitive to misspecified factor covariances, and a group of other fit indexes were most sensitive to misspecified factor loadings. Based on these findings, a 2-index strategy-that is, SRMR coupled with another index-was proposed in model fit assessment to detect potential misspecification in both the structural and measurement model parameters. Based on our reasoning and empirical work presented in this article, we conclude that SRMR is not necessarily most sensitive to misspecified factor covariances (structural model misspecification), the group of indexes (TLI, BL89, RNI, CFI, Gamma hat, Mc, or RMSEA) are not necessarily more sensitive to misspecified factor loadings (measurement model misspecification), and the rationale for the 2-index presentation strategy appears to have questionable validity.     

‘Consider the Opposite’ – Effects of elaborative feedback and correct answer feedback on reducing confirmation bias – A pre-registered study

Unbiased reasoning is considered an essential critical thinking skill that students need to possess to face the future challenges in their work and life. Confirmation bias, which is the tendency to selectively attend to information that is consistent with held beliefs, presents a significant thread to unbiased reasoning. An effective strategy to reduce confirmation bias is the ‘consider-the-opposite’-strategy (COS). The central question of this pre-registered study was whether providing elaborative, worked example feedback after COS practice would lead to a better performance on previously practised and transfer tasks than correct-answer feedback. Participants were 132 university students who took a confirmation bias pre-test, watched an instructional video on COS afterwards and next received either worked example feedback or correct answer feedback on practice tasks, practised only, watched the instruction only or received no treatment. Finally, all participants took a learning test assessing their skill to avoid confirmation bias, and a transfer test assessing whether they could apply this acquired skill to problems containing other biases. Results revealed no differences on the learning test between both feedback conditions, but students who received feedback scored significantly higher on the confirmation bias problems than students who did not receive feedback. We carried out our pre-registered analysis plan, but due to the low reliability of particularly the pre-test, we carried out an additional exploratory analysis on subsets of post-test items and a subset of transfer test items. Results on learning revealed the same pattern as the planned analyses. However, we found no differences between any of the conditions on transfer.     

The Performance of ML,GLS, and WLS Estimation in Structural Equation Modeling Under Conditions of Misspecification and Nonnormality

This simulation study demonstrates how the choice of estimation method affects indexes of fit and parameter bias for different sample sizes when nested models vary in terms of specification error and the data demonstrate different levels of kurtosis. Using a fully crossed design, data were generated for 11 conditions of peakedness, 3 conditions of misspecification, and 5 different sample sizes. Three estimation methods (maximum likelihood [ML], generalized least squares [GLS], and weighted least squares [WLS]) were compared in terms of overall fit and the discrepancy between estimated parameter values and the true parameter values used to generate the data. Consistent with earlier findings, the results show that ML compared to GLS under conditions of misspecification provides more realistic indexes of overall fit and less biased parameter values for paths that overlap with the true model. However, despite recommendations found in the literature that WLS should be used when data are not normally distributed, we find that WLS under no conditions was preferable to the 2 other estimation procedures in terms of parameter bias and fit. In fact, only for large sample sizes (N = 1,000 and 2,000) and mildly misspecified models did WLS provide estimates and fit indexes close to the ones obtained for ML and GLS. For wrongly specified models WLS tended to give unreliable estimates and over-optimistic values of fit.     

An Investigation of Classification Consistency Indexes Estimated Under Alternative Strong True Score Models

Using several data sets, the authors examine the relative performance of the beta binomial model and two other more general strong true score models in estimating several indexes of classification consistency. It is shown that the beta binomial model can provide inadequate fits to raw score distributions compared to more general models. This lack of fit is reflected in differences in decision consistency indexes computed using the beta binomial model and the other models. It is recommended that the adequacy of a model in fitting the data be assessed before the model is used to estimate decision consistency indexes. When the beta binomial model does not fit the data, the more general models discussed here may provide an adequate fit and, in such cases, would be more appropriate for computing decision consistency indexes.     

Effects of sample size,estimation methods,and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes

A Monte Carlo simulation study was conducted to investigate the effects on structural equation modeling (SEM) fit indexes of sample size, estimation method, and model specification. Based on a balanced experimental design, samples were generated from a prespecified population covariance matrix and fitted to structural equation models with different degrees of model misspecification. Ten SEM fit indexes were studied. Two primary conclusions were suggested: (a) some fit indexes appear to be noncomparable in terms of the information they provide about model fit for misspecified models and (b) estimation method strongly influenced almost all the fit indexes examined, especially for misspecified models. These 2 issues do not seem to have drawn enough attention from SEM practitioners. Future research should study not only different models vis‐à‐vis model complexity, but a wider range of model specification conditions, including correctly specified models and models specified incorrectly to varying degrees.     

Bootstrapping Confidence Intervals for Fit Indexes in Structural Equation Modeling

Bootstrapping approximate fit indexes in structural equation modeling (SEM) is of great importance because most fit indexes do not have tractable analytic distributions. Model-based bootstrap, which has been proposed to obtain the distribution of the model chi-square statistic under the null hypothesis (Bollen & Stine, 1992), is not theoretically appropriate for obtaining confidence intervals (CIs) for fit indexes because it assumes the null is exactly true. On the other hand, naive bootstrap is not expected to work well for those fit indexes that are based on the chi-square statistic, such as the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) and the comparative fit index (CFI), because sample noncentrality is a biased estimate of the population noncentrality. In this article we argue that a recently proposed bootstrap approach due to Yuan, Hayashi, and Yanagihara (YHY; 2007) is ideal for bootstrapping fit indexes that are based on the chi-square. This method transforms the data so that the “parent” population has the population noncentrality parameter equal to the estimated noncentrality in the original sample. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the performance of the YHY bootstrap and the naive bootstrap for 4 indexes: RMSEA, CFI, goodness-of-fit index (GFI), and standardized root mean square residual (SRMR). We found that for RMSEA and CFI, the CIs under the YHY bootstrap had relatively good coverage rates for all conditions, whereas the CIs under the naive bootstrap had very low coverage rates when the fitted model had large degrees of freedom. However, for GFI and SRMR, the CIs under both bootstrap methods had poor coverage rates in most conditions.     

中国纺织服装业如何应对绿色壁垒

随着全球纺织服装贸易配额的全面取消, 纺织品配额已不再是贸易歧视、限制出口的主要障碍, 取而代之的是产品质量的环境指标和安全认证等绿色贸易壁垒。中国纺织服装业只有在充分认识自身弱点的基础上, 采取一系列战略措施, 才能打破绿色贸易壁垒。     

Parenting quality: Confirmation of a higher-order latent construct with mothers of Head Start children

We proposed a higher order latent construct of parenting young children, parenting quality. This higher-order latent construct comprises five component constructs: demographic protection, psychological distress, psychosocial maturity, moral and cognitive reflectivity, and parenting attitudes and beliefs. We evaluated this model with data provided by 199 mothers of 4-year-old children enrolled in Head Start. The model was confirmed with only one adjustment suggested by modification indices. Final RMSEA was .05, CFI .96, and NNFI .94, indicating good model fit. Results were interpreted as emphasizing the interdependence of psychological and environmental demands on parenting. Implications of the model for teachers, early interventionists, and public policy are discussed.     

Confidence Intervals of Fit Indexes by Inverting a Bootstrap Test

Fit indexes are an important tool in the evaluation of model fit in structural equation modeling (SEM). Currently, the newest confidence interval (CI) for fit indexes proposed by Zhang and Savalei (2016) is based on the quantiles of a bootstrap sampling distribution at a single level of misspecification. This method, despite a great improvement over naive and model-based bootstrap methods, still suffers from unsatisfactory coverage. In this work, we propose a new method of constructing bootstrap CIs for various fit indexes. This method directly inverts a bootstrap test and produces a CI that involves levels of misspecification that would not be rejected in a bootstrap test. Similar in rationale to a parametric CI of root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) based on a noncentral χ2 distribution and a profile-likelihood CI of model parameters, this approach is shown to have better performance than the approach of Zhang and Savalei (2016), with more accurate coverage and more efficient widths.     

New Ways to Evaluate Goodness of Fit: A Note on Using Equivalence Testing to Assess Structural Equation Models

Structural equation models are typically evaluated on the basis of goodness-of-fit indexes. Despite their popularity, agreeing what value these indexes should attain to confidently decide between the acceptance and rejection of a model has been greatly debated. A recently proposed approach by means of equivalence testing has been recommended as a superior way to evaluate the goodness of fit of models. The approach has also been proposed as providing a necessary vehicle that can be used to advance the inferential nature of structural equation modeling as a confirmatory tool. The purpose of this article is to introduce readers to key ideas in equivalence testing and illustrate its use for conducting model–data fit assessments. Two confirmatory factor analysis models in which a priori specified latent variable models with known structure and tested against data are used as examples. It is advocated that whenever the goodness of fit of a model is to be assessed researchers should always examine the resulting values obtained via the equivalence testing approach.     

The Ability for Posterior Predictive Checking to Identify Model Misspecification in Bayesian Growth Mixture Modeling

Proper model specification is an issue for researchers, regardless of the estimation framework being utilized. Typically, indexes are used to compare the fit of one model to the fit of an alternate model. These indexes only provide an indication of relative fit and do not necessarily point toward proper model specification. There is a procedure in the Bayesian framework called posterior predictive checking that is designed theoretically to detect model misspecification for observed data. However, the performance of the posterior predictive check procedure has thus far not been directly examined under different conditions of mixture model misspecification. This article addresses this task and aims to provide additional insight into whether or not posterior predictive checks can detect model misspecification within the context of Bayesian growth mixture modeling. Results indicate that this procedure can only identify mixture model misspecification under very extreme cases of misspecification.     

A Cautionary Note on the Use of Information Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Modeling With Means

Information fit indexes such as Akaike Information Criterion, Consistent Akaike Information Criterion, Bayesian Information Criterion, and the expected cross validation index can be valuable in assessing the relative fit of structural equation models that differ regarding restrictiveness. In cases in which models without mean restrictions (i.e., saturated mean structure) are compared to models with restricted (i.e., modeled) means, one should take account of the presence of means, even if the model is saturated with respect to the means. The failure to do this can result in an incorrect rank order of models in terms of the information fit indexes. We demonstrate this point by an analysis of measurement invariance in a multigroup confirmatory factor model.     

The dynamics of life stressors and depressive symptoms in early adolescence: a test of six theoretical models

Structural equation modeling was used to compare 6 competing theoretically based psychosocial models of the longitudinal association between life stressors and depressive symptoms in a sample of early adolescents ( N = 907; 40% Hispanic, 32% Black, and 19% White; mean age at Time 1 = 11.4 years). Only two models fit the data, both of which included paths modeling the effect of depressive symptoms on stressors recall: The mood-congruent cognitive bias model included only depressive symptoms to life stressors paths (DS→S), whereas the fully transactional model included paths representing both the DS→S and stressors to depressive symptoms (S→DS) effects. Social causation models and the stress generation model did not fit the data. Findings demonstrate the importance of accounting for mood-congruent cognitive bias in stressors–depressive symptoms investigations.     

Teaching on video as an instructional strategy to reduce confirmation bias—a pre-registered study

Instructional Science - The aim of this experiment was to examine the effect of different instructional strategies on student teachers’ confirmation bias. Confirmation bias refers to the...     

Multidimensional Factor-Analysis-Based Procedures for Assessing Scalability in Personality Measurement

Most personality tests are made up of Likert-type items and analyzed by means of factor analysis (FA). In this type of application, the fit of the model at the level of individual respondents is almost never assessed. This article proposes procedures for assessing individual fit (scalability). The procedures are intended for the analysis of multitrait personality questionnaires, and based on the multiple FA model. A general assessment procedure is described, and 2 multidimensional scalability indexes that use the chi-square and normal distribution are proposed. These indexes are derived both as residual measures and as likelihood-based person-fit measures, and their relations with some item-response, theory-based measures is discussed. The indexes are proposed mainly as first-step exploratory devices, and procedures for obtaining further information about the possible causes of misfit are also discussed. The behavior of the indexes is assessed in simulation studies, and the general procedure is illustrated by means of an empirical example.     

Innovations in Measuring Rater Accuracy in Standard Setting: Assessing “Fit” to Item Characteristic Curves

Standard setting methods such as the Angoff method rely on judgments of item characteristics; item response theory empirically estimates item characteristics and displays them in item characteristic curves (ICCs). This study evaluated several indexes of rater fit to ICCs as a method for judging rater accuracy in their estimates of expected item performance for target groups of test-takers. Simulated data were used to compare adequately fitting ratings to poorly fitting ratings at various target competence levels in a simulated two stage standard setting study. The indexes were then applied to a set of real ratings on 66 items evaluated at 4 competence thresholds to demonstrate their relative usefulness for gaining insight into rater “fit.” Based on analysis of both the simulated and real data, it is recommended that fit indexes based on the absolute deviations of ratings from the ICCs be used, and those based on the standard errors of ratings should be avoided. Suggestions are provided for using these indexes in future research and practice.