Contribución de los Modelos Factoriales Confirmatorios a la Evaluación de Estructura Interna desde la Perspectiva de la Validez

  1. Daniel Ondé 1
  2. Jesús Mª Alvarado 1
  1. 1 Universidad Complutense de Madrid. Facultad de Psicología
Journal:
Revista iberoamericana de diagnóstico y evaluación psicológica

ISSN: 1135-3848

Year of publication: 2022

Issue Title: Avances en Medición en Psicología

Volume: 5

Issue: 66

Pages: 5-22

Type: Article

DOI: 10.21865/RIDEP66.5.01 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen access editor

More publications in: Revista iberoamericana de diagnóstico y evaluación psicológica

Abstract

We re-examine some of the most important contributions of Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to internal structure evaluation. Our main goal is to show the usefulness of these techniques to connect the factor model with the theoretical model (taking into account the content of the items, the purpose of the tests, and the use of the scores derived (total vs subscales)). In the first section, we characterize the type of applications reflected in the scientific literature. In the following ones, we a) discuss the advantages of the confirmatory over the exploratory framework, b) assess the advantages and disadvantages of the confirmatory bifactor model, and c) introduce the S-1 bifactor model as a promising alternative. In the last section, we illustrate with an empirical example the usefulness of the different CFA models examined in this work.

Bibliographic References

  • American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association & National Council for Measurement in Education [AERA, APA & NCME] (2014). The Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. AERA.
  • Blanco-Canitrot, D., Alvarado, J. M., & Ondé, D. (2018). Consequences of disregarding metric invariance on diagnosis and prognosis using psychological tests. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 167.
  • Brown, T. A. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford publications.
  • Chen, F. F., West, S. G., & Sousa, K. H. (2006). A comparison of bifactor and second-order models of quality of life. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 41(2), 189-225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr4102_5
  • Eid, M. (2000). A multitrait-multimethod model with minimal assumptions. Psychometrika, 65, 241-261.
  • Eid, M., Geiser, C., Koch, T., & Heene, M. (2017). Anomalous results in G-factor models: Explanations and alternatives. Psychological Methods, 22(3), 541-562. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000083
  • Eid, M., Krumm, S., Koch, T., & Schulze, J. (2018). Bifactor models for predicting criteria by general and specific factors: Problems of nonidentifiability and alternative solutions. Journal of Intelligence, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030042
  • Hendy, N., Krammer, G., Schermer, J. A., & Biderman, M. D. (2020). Using bifactor models to identify faking on Big Five questionnaires. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 29(1), 81-99. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12316
  • Holzinger, K. J., & Swineford, F. (1937). The bi-factor method. Psychometrika, 2, 41-54.
  • Izquierdo, I., Olea, J., & Abad, F. J. (2014). Exploratory factor analysis in validation studies: Uses and recommendations. Psicothema, 26(3), 395-400. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2013.349
  • Jackson, D. L., Gillaspy, J. A. Jr., & Purc-Stephenson, R. (2009). Reporting practices in confirmatory factor analysis: An overview and some recommendations. Psychological Methods, 14(1), 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014694
  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34(2), 183-202.
  • Jöreskog, K. G. (1990). New developments in LISREL: Analysis of ordinal variables using polychoric correlations and weighted least squares. Quality and Quantity, 24, 387- 404.
  • Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford publications.
  • Ledesma, R. D., Ferrando, P. J., & Tosi, J. D. (2019). Uso del Análisis Factorial Exploratorio en RIDEP. Recomendaciones para autores y revisores. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – Avaliação Psicológica, 3(52), 173-180. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP52.3.13
  • Lloret, S., Ferreres, A., Hernández, A., & Tomás, I. (2014). El análisis factorial exploratorio de los ítems: Una guía práctica, revisada y actualizada. Anales de Psicología, 30(3), 1151-1169. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.3.199361
  • Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psychological theory. Psychological Reports, 3(3), 635-694. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1957.3.3.635
  • Maydeu-Olivares, A., & Coffman, D. L. (2006). Random intercept item factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 11(4), 344. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.11.4.344
  • McDonald R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified approach. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
  • McDonald, R. P., & Ho, M. H. R. (2002). Principles and practice in reporting structural equation analyses. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 64-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.1.64
  • Mokhtari, K., Dimitrov, D. M., & Reichard, C. A. (2018). Revising the Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory (MARSI) and testing for factorial invariance. Education Faculty Publications and Presentations, 2, 219-246. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.2.3
  • Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249-259. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.94.2.249
  • Mulaik, S. A. (2009). Foundations of factor analysis (2nd Ed.). Chapman and Hall/CRC.
  • Muthén, B. (1984). A general structural equation model with dichotomous, ordered categorical, and continuous latent variable indicators. Psychometrika, 49, 115-132.
  • Ondé, D., Alvarado, J. M., Sastre, S., & Azañedo, C. M. (2021). Application of S-1 bifactor model to evaluate the structural validity of TMMS-24. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 18(14), 7427. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147427
  • Ondé, D., Jiménez, V., Alvarado, J. M., & Gràcia, M. (2022). Analysis of the structural validity of the Reduced Version of Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.894327
  • Pérez, D. O. (2020). Revisión del concepto de causalidad en el marco del Análisis Factorial Confirmatorio. Revista Iberoamericana de Diagnóstico y Evaluación – e Avaliação Psicológica, 1(54), 103-117. https://doi.org/10.21865/RIDEP54.1.09
  • Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47(5), 667-696. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2012.715555
  • Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013). Multidimensionality and structural coefficient bias in structural equation modeling: A bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73(1), 5-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164412449831
  • Revelle, W., & Wilt, J. (2013). The general factor of personality: A general critique. Journal of Research in Personality, 47(5), 493-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.04.012
  • Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  • Sterner, P., & Goretzko, D. (2022). Exploratory factor analysis trees: Evaluating measurement invariance between multiple covariates. OSF. https://osf.io/7pgrb/
  • Trizano-Hermosilla, I., & Alvarado, J. M. (2016). Best alternatives to Cronbach’s alpha reliability in realistic conditions: Congeneric and asymmetrical measurements. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 769. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00769
  • Wicherts, J. M., Veldkamp, C. L., Augusteijn, H. E., Bakker, M., Van Aert, R., & Van Assen, M. A. (2016). Degrees of freedom in planning, running, analyzing, and reporting psychological studies: A checklist to avoid p-hacking. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1832. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01832
Data source: Dialnet