Assessing the fitting propensity of factor models.

Bader, Martina; Moshagen, Morten

doi:10.1037/met0000529

Cited by 13 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 77 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Values of CFI ≥ .97, NNFI ≥ .97, RMSEA ≤ .05, and SRMR ≤ .05 were considered indicators for good model fit (Schermelleh-Engel et al, 2003). Following Bader and Moshagen (2022), we used the NNFI and RMSEA for model comparisons. In contrast to fit indices that do not take the model complexity into account or information criteria that are strongly affected by sample size, parsimony-adjusted goodness of fit indices more accurately identify the best relative fit for model selection.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale

Gnambs,

Schroeders

2024

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Core Self-Evaluations Scale (CSES) measures a broad personality trait reflecting individuals’ self-appraisals of their worth, capabilities, and control of their lives. Although the CSES was designed to capture a single trait, factor analytic studies often found more complex measurement structures. These either referred to different content facets or methodological artifacts due to the item wording. The present random-effects meta-analysis summarized correlation matrices from 53 samples including 31,843 respondents. After accounting for acquiescent responding, meta-analytic confirmatory factor analyses revealed a single common factor for all items. The factor was highly reliable (ω = .87) and demonstrated partial metric measurement invariance across English, German, and Spanish language versions as well as cultural tendencies of individualism and flexibility. However, Chinese and Romanian translations exhibited substantially lower factor loadings. These results corroborate the use of the CSES as a unidimensional measure, albeit systematic investigations of measurement invariance are recommended before its use in cross-cultural research.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale

Gnambs,

Schroeders

2024

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intercorrelations between factors were set to zero to allow for clear partitioning of variance. Based on recent recommendations (Bader & Moshagen, 2022), the optimal number of exploratory factors was determined using the Tucker-Lewis index (TLI) and the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), with additional consideration given to deriving a maximum number of interpretable factors. For the tasks, we used bifactor confirmatory factor analysis (bifactor CFA), as shown in Supplemental Table S2.…”

Section: Internal Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Mindreading measures misread? A multimethod investigation into the validity of self-report and task-based approaches.

Wendt,

Zimmermann,

Spitzer

et al. 2024

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mindreading ability-also referred to as cognitive empathy or mentalizing-is typically conceptualized as a relatively stable dimension of individual differences in the ability to make accurate inferences about the mental states of others. This construct is primarily assessed using self-report questionnaires and task-based performance measures. However, the validity of these measures has been questioned: According to rival interpretations, mindreading tasks may capture general cognitive ability, whereas mindreading self-reports may capture perceived rather than actual mindreading ability. In this preregistered multimethod study involving 700 participants from the U.S. general population, we tested the validity of mindreading measures by examining the nomological network of self-reports and task-based methods using structural equation modeling. Specifically, we contrasted the empirical associations with theoretical predictions that assume mindreading measures are valid versus invalid. More consistent with rival interpretations, mindreading tasks showed a negligible latent correlation with mindreading self-reports (.05) and a large one with general cognitive ability (.85), whereas mindreading self-reports were specifically associated with perceived performance in mindreading tasks (.29). Also more consistent with rival interpretations, neither mindreading self-reports nor task-based measures showed positive unique associations with psychosocial functioning when controlling for general cognitive ability and general positive self-evaluation. Instead, negative unique associations emerged for both methods, although this effect was not robust for tasks. Overall, the results cast doubt on the validity of commonly used mindreading measures and support their rival interpretations. Public Significance StatementThis study indicates that psychological tests designed to assess mindreading ability may lack validity in that mindreading tasks may largely capture general cognitive ability rather than specific mindreading ability, while self-report questionnaires on mindreading may primarily capture subjective selfperception.

show abstract

“…The main focus, however, is on testing the competing measurement models by means of confirmatory factor analysis with a weighted least square estimator using the asymptotic variance-covariance matrix of the pooled correlations from the first step as weights (Cheung & Chan, 2005). In line with conventional standards (see Schermelleh-Engel et al, 2003) and current recommendations (Bader & Moshagen, 2022), the following cut-off criteria were used as an indication of acceptable model fit: Comparative fit index (CFI) ! .95, non-normed fit index (NNFI; also known as Tucker-Lewis Index) !…”

Section: Meta-analytic Proceduresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Short-Scale Construction Using Meta-Analytic Ant Colony Optimization

Schroeders,

Morgenstern,

Jankowsky

et al. 2024

European Journal of Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Need for Cognition Scale (NCS) is a self-report scale measuring individual differences in the tendency to engage in and enjoy thinking. The shortened version with 18 items (NCS-18; Cacioppo et al., 1984 ) has widely been administered in research on persuasion, critical thinking, and educational achievement. Whereas most studies advocated for essential uni-dimensionality, the question remains which psychometric model yields the best representation of the NCS-18. In the present study, we compared six competing measurement models for the NCS-18 with meta-analytic structural equation models using summary data of 87 samples ( N = 90,215). Results demonstrated that the negatively worded items introduced considerable measurement bias that was best accounted for with an acquiescence model. In a further analytical step, we showcased how the pooled correlation matrix can be used to compile short versions of the NCS-18 via Ant Colony Optimization. We examined model fit and reliability of short scales with varying item numbers (between 4 and 15) and a balanced ratio of positively and negatively worded items. We discuss the potentials and limits of the newly proposed method.

show abstract

Assessing the fitting propensity of factor models.

Cited by 13 publications

References 77 publications

Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale

Reliability and Factorial Validity of the Core Self-Evaluations Scale

Mindreading measures misread? A multimethod investigation into the validity of self-report and task-based approaches.

Short-Scale Construction Using Meta-Analytic Ant Colony Optimization

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About