Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
G Lecture 10 SEM methods revisited Multilevel models revisited
Advertisements

Structural Equation Modeling. What is SEM Swiss Army Knife of Statistics Can replicate virtually any model from “canned” stats packages (some limitations.
Structural Equation Modeling Using Mplus Chongming Yang Research Support Center FHSS College.
Structural Equation Modeling
Structural Equation Modeling: An Overview P. Paxton.
Confirmatory factor analysis GHQ 12. From Shevlin/Adamson 2005:
1 SSS II Lecture 1: Correlation and Regression Graduate School 2008/2009 Social Science Statistics II Gwilym Pryce
Linear Regression and Binary Variables The independent variable does not necessarily need to be continuous. If the independent variable is binary (e.g.,
Factor Analysis & Structural Equation Models 2 Sociology 8811, Class 29 Copyright © 2007 by Evan Schofer Do not copy or distribute without permission.
Overview of field trial analysis procedures National Research Coordinators Meeting Windsor, June 2008.
Structural Equation Modeling
Multivariate Data Analysis Chapter 11 - Structural Equation Modeling.
When Measurement Models and Factor Models Conflict: Maximizing Internal Consistency James M. Graham, Ph.D. Western Washington University ABSTRACT: The.
“Ghost Chasing”: Demystifying Latent Variables and SEM
Structural Equation Modeling
G Lecture 51 Estimation details Testing Fit Fit indices Arguing for models.
Chapter 7 Correlational Research Gay, Mills, and Airasian
Structural Equation Modeling Intro to SEM Psy 524 Ainsworth.
Lecture 5 Correlation and Regression
Stages in Structural Equation Modeling
Factor Analysis Psy 524 Ainsworth.
Social Science Research Design and Statistics, 2/e Alfred P. Rovai, Jason D. Baker, and Michael K. Ponton Factor Analysis PowerPoint Prepared by Alfred.
G Lecture 61 G SEM Lecture 6 An Example Measures of Fit Complex nonrecursive models How can we tell if a model is identified? Direct and.
Multiple Sample Models James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
Introduction to CFA. LEARNING OBJECTIVES: Upon completing this chapter, you should be able to do the following: Distinguish between exploratory factor.
Issues in structural equation modeling Hans Baumgartner Penn State University.
Philip Hyland Confirmatory Factor Analysis in Mplus
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Psych 818 DeShon. Purpose ● Takes factor analysis a few steps further. ● Impose theoretically interesting constraints on.
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) With Latent Variables James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 7: fitting a model, fit indices, comparingmodels, statistical power.
Factor validation of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale: An Assessment and Review Tom R. EikebrokkEllen K. NyhusUniversity of Agder.
1 Exploratory & Confirmatory Factor Analysis Alan C. Acock OSU Summer Institute, 2009.
ROB CRIBBIE QUANTITATIVE METHODS PROGRAM – DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY COORDINATOR - STATISTICAL CONSULTING SERVICE COURSE MATERIALS AVAILABLE AT:
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis Psych 818 DeShon. Construct Validity: MTMM ● Assessed via convergent and divergent evidence ● Convergent – Measures of the.
Measurement Models: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
Appraisal and Its Application to Counseling COUN 550 Saint Joseph College For Class # 3 Copyright © 2005 by R. Halstead. All rights reserved.
Reliability Analysis Based on the results of the PAF, a reliability analysis was run on the 16 items retained in the Task Value subscale. The Cronbach’s.
Aron, Aron, & Coups, Statistics for the Behavioral and Social Sciences: A Brief Course (3e), © 2005 Prentice Hall Chapter 12 Making Sense of Advanced Statistical.
Measures of Fit David A. Kenny January 25, Background Introduction to Measures of Fit.
Advanced Statistics Factor Analysis, II. Last lecture 1. What causes what, ξ → Xs, Xs→ ξ ? 2. Do we explore the relation of Xs to ξs, or do we test (try.
Measurement Models: Identification and Estimation James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University.
G Lecture 81 Comparing Measurement Models across Groups Reducing Bias with Hybrid Models Setting the Scale of Latent Variables Thinking about Hybrid.
CFA: Basics Beaujean Chapter 3. Other readings Kline 9 – a good reference, but lumps this entire section into one chapter.
SEM Basics 2 Byrne Chapter 2 Kline pg 7-15, 50-51, ,
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling Class 8: Confirmatory Factory Analysis.
LESSON 6: REGRESSION 2/21/12 EDUC 502: Introduction to Statistics.
Examples. Path Model 1 Simple mediation model. Much of the influence of Family Background (SES) is indirect.
ALISON BOWLING CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS. REVIEW OF EFA Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) Explores the data All measured variables are related to every.
Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Longitudinal Data David A. Kenny December
Chapter 17 STRUCTURAL EQUATION MODELING. Structural Equation Modeling (SEM)  Relatively new statistical technique used to test theoretical or causal.
The SweSAT Vocabulary (word): understanding of words and concepts. Data Sufficiency (ds): numerical reasoning ability. Reading Comprehension (read): Swedish.
Testing the Equality of Means and Variances in Over-Time Data David A. Kenny.
Using Latent Variable Models in Survey Research Roger E. Millsap Arizona State University Contact: (480)
Measures of Fit David A. Kenny.
Approaches of Model Specification for Testing Factor Mean Differences in Multi-group Higher-order CFA Model Jichuan Wang, Ph.D. Children’s National Medical.
Advanced Statistical Methods: Continuous Variables
1University of Oklahoma 2Shaker Consulting
Structural Equation Modeling using MPlus
Chapter 15 Confirmatory Factor Analysis
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling
CJT 765: Structural Equation Modeling
Making Sense of Advanced Statistical Procedures in Research Articles
Writing about Structural Equation Models
Structural Equation Modeling
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) With Latent Variables
SEM evaluation and rules
Autoregressive and Growth Curve Models
Testing Causal Hypotheses
Structural Equation Modeling
Presentation transcript:

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Confirmatory Factor Analysis Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) is a type of structural equation modeling (SEM) that deals specifically with the relationships between observed measures or indicators (e.g., test items, test scores, behavioral observation ratings) and latent variables or factors. CFA is used to verify the number of underlying dimensions of the instrument (factors) and the pattern of item–factor relationships (factor loadings) CFA is an analytic tool for construct validation in the social and behavioral sciences.

Factor A factor is an unobservable variable that influences more than one observed measure and that accounts for the correlations among these observed measures. The observed measures are intercorrelated because they share a common cause (i.e., they are influenced by the same underlying construct);

Calculations

Guidelines for Interpreting Goodness‑of‑Fit Indices The latent variable (factor) of Depression is depicted by a circle or an oval, whereas the four clinical ratings (indicators) are represented by squares or rectangles. The unidirectional arrows (→) represent the factor loadings (λ, or lambda), which are the regression slopes (direct effects) for predicting the indicators from the factor (η, or eta). These arrows are also used to relate the unique variances (ε, or epsilon) to the indicators.

Guidelines for Interpreting Goodness‑of‑Fit Indices Hu and Bentler (1999) suggest the following guidelines: SRMR values are close to .08 or below RMSEA values are close to .06 or below CFI and TLI (NNFI in Lisrel) values are close to .95 or greater.

Guidelines for Interpreting Goodness‑of‑Fit Indices Browne and Cudeck (1993) suggest, as a rule of thumb, that RMSEA values less than 0.08 suggest adequate model fit (i.e., a “reasonable error of approximation,” p. 144); that RMSEA values less than 0.05 suggest good model fit; and that models with RMSEA ≥ 0.1 should be rejected

Guidelines for Interpreting Goodness‑of‑Fit Indices Methodologists have noted that while CFI and TLI values below .90 should lead the researcher to strongly suspect (reject) the solution, CFI and TLI values in the range of .90 and .95 may be indicative of acceptable model fit (e.g., Bentler, 1990).

Modification Indices The modification index reflects an approximation of how much the overall mode c2 will decrease if the fixed or constrained parameter is freely estimated. Because the modification index can be conceptualized as a c2 statistic with 1 df, indices of 3.84 or greater (which reflects the critical value of c2 at p < .05, 1 df) suggest that the overall fit of the model can be significantly improved (p < .05).

Unnecessary Parameters Models can be revised by eliminating statistically nonsignificant parameters.

Correlated Errors When no correlated errors (error covariances) are specified, the researcher is asserting that all of the covariation among indicators loading on a given factor is due to that latent dimension (and that all measurement error is random). Correlated errors between indicators are specified on the basis of the notion that some of the covariance in the indicators not explained by the latent variable is due to another exogenous common cause. In the case of the analysis of multiple questionnaire items, correlated errors may arise from items that are very similarly worded, reverse- worded, differentially prone to social desirability, or the like.

Correlated Errors Type Set error covariance between Variable1 and Variable2 free

Reporting CFA

Reporting CFA

References

Video Lectures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isDGTLuhdvg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccNSZ7_eqns