2004
DOI: 10.1207/s15328007sem1104_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Applying Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Models for Continuous Outcomes to Likert Scale Data Complicates Meaningful Group Comparisons

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
249
0
9

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 381 publications
(261 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
3
249
0
9
Order By: Relevance
“…Likert and rank item responses were analyzed as continuous variables, as conventionally reported [12]. PD and fellow responses were compared using an independent t test for continuous variables and the Chi-squared test for proportions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Likert and rank item responses were analyzed as continuous variables, as conventionally reported [12]. PD and fellow responses were compared using an independent t test for continuous variables and the Chi-squared test for proportions.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The criteria for item rejection was based on univariate skew and kurtosis characteristics and absolute skew values equal to, or greater than 3 and absolute kurtosis values of equal to, or greater than 10, based on the non-normality cut-off recommendations of Kline (2005). Statistical analysis for all quantitative studies in this thesis were conducted using PASW version 18 (SPSS, 2009a,b), Analysis of Moment Structures (AMOS) version 18 (Arbuckle, 1995(Arbuckle, -2009) and Mplus version 3 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998-2004.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All structural equation modeling analyses were performed on polychoric correlation matrices using Mplus (version 7.0; Muthén & Muthén, 2012) with the WLSMV estimator for categorical variables. This estimator estimates models with missing data (there were approximately 5% of missing responses in the present study) based on the full sample (n = 1416) and the full information that is available using pairwise present methods (see Asparouhov & Muthén, 2010).The choice to rely on WLSMV estimation is linked to the fact that this estimator is more suited to the ordered-categorical nature of Likert scales than traditional maximum likelihood estimation (Beauducel & Herzberg, 2006;Finney, & DiStefano, 2006;Lubke & Muthén, 2004).…”
Section: Study 1 Participants Procedure and Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%