Comparing latent means using two factor scaling methods : a Monte Carlo study

Repository

Comparing latent means using two factor scaling methods : a Monte Carlo study

Show simple record

dc.contributor.advisor Whittaker, Tiffany
dc.contributor.advisor Beretvas, Susan Natasha
dc.creator Wang, Dandan, 1981-
dc.date.accessioned 2012-07-10T14:57:06Z
dc.date.available 2012-07-10T14:57:06Z
dc.date.created 2012
dc.date.issued 2012-07-10
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2152/16414
dc.description.abstract Social science researchers are increasingly using multi-group confirmatory factor analysis (MG-CFA) to compare different groups' latent variable means. To ensure that a MG-CFA model is identified, two approaches are commonly used to set the scale of the latent variable. The reference indicator (RI) strategy, which involves constraining one loading per factor to a value of one across groups, assumes that the RI has equal factor loadings across groups. The second approach involves constraining each factor's variance to a value of one across groups and, thus, assumes that the factor variances are equal across groups. Latent mean differences may be tested and described using Gonzalez and Griffin's (2001) likelihood ratio test (LRT[subscript k]) and Hancock's (2001) standardized latent mean difference effect size measure ([delta subscript k]), respectively. Applied researchers using the LRT[subscript k] and/or the [delta subscript k] when comparing groups' latent means may not explicitly test the assumptions underlying the two factor scaling methods. To date, no study has examined the impact of violating the assumptions associated with the two scaling methods on latent mean comparisons. The purpose of this study was to assess the performance of the LRT[subscript k] and the [delta subscript k] when violating the assumptions underlying the RI strategy and/or the factor variance scaling method. Type I error and power of the LRT[subscript k] as well as relative parameter bias and parameter bias of the [delta subscript k] were examined when varying loading difference magnitude, factor variance ratio, factor loading pattern and sample size ratio. Rejection rates of model fit indices, including the x² test, RMSEA, CFI, TLI and SRMR, under these varied conditions were also examined. The results indicated that violating the assumptions underlying the RI strategy did not affect the LRT[subscript k] or the [delta subscript k]. However, violating the assumption underlying the factorvariance scaling method influenced Type I error rates of the LRT[subscript k], particularly in unequal sample size conditions. Results also indicated that the four factors manipulated in this study had an impact on correct model rejection rates of the model fit indices. It is hoped that this study provides useful information to researchers concerning the use of the LRT[subscript k] and [delta subscript k] under factor scaling method assumption violations.
dc.format.medium electronic
dc.language.iso eng
dc.rights Copyright © is held by the author. Presentation of this material on the Libraries' web site by University Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin was made possible under a limited license grant from the author who has retained all copyrights in the works.
dc.subject Structural equation modeling
dc.subject Latent mean comparison
dc.subject Factor scaling methods
dc.subject Assumption violation
dc.subject Likelihood ratio test
dc.subject Standardized latent mean difference effect size measure
dc.title Comparing latent means using two factor scaling methods : a Monte Carlo study
dc.description.department Educational Psychology
dc.type.genre Thesis
dc.type.material text
thesis.degree.department Educational Psychology
thesis.degree.discipline Educational Psychology
thesis.degree.grantor The University of Texas at Austin
thesis.degree.level Doctoral
thesis.degree.name Doctor of Philosophy

Files in this work

Size: 2.747Mb
Format: application/pdf

This work appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple record


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

Statistics

Information