2000
DOI: 10.1207/s15327906mbr3501_2
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Investigating Spearman's Hypothesis by Means of Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

5
121
0

Year Published

2004
2004
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

3
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 89 publications
(128 citation statements)
references
References 43 publications
5
121
0
Order By: Relevance
“…First, we conducted a standard analysis of variance approach. Second, we took a latent variable approach, i.e., multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (Dolan, 2000;Meredith, 1993). We examined (i) the organization of executive function in children and youngadults by investigating whether the indicators of the Working Memory, Shifting, and Inhibition tasks measured the same constructs across age, (ii) whether this organization changes across development, and (iii) how EF component processes contribute to the performance on the WCST and the ToL across age groups, again following Miyake et al (2000).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, we conducted a standard analysis of variance approach. Second, we took a latent variable approach, i.e., multi-group confirmatory factor analyses (Dolan, 2000;Meredith, 1993). We examined (i) the organization of executive function in children and youngadults by investigating whether the indicators of the Working Memory, Shifting, and Inhibition tasks measured the same constructs across age, (ii) whether this organization changes across development, and (iii) how EF component processes contribute to the performance on the WCST and the ToL across age groups, again following Miyake et al (2000).…”
Section: The Present Studymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The exact relation between these two methods of studying group differences, and the advantages of MG-CMSA over the method of correlated vectors, have been discussed in detail elsewhere (e.g., Ashton & Lee, 2005;Dolan, 2000;Dolan & Hamaker, 2001;Dolan et al, 2004;Lubke, Dolan, & Kelderman, 2001;Lubke et al, 2003;Millsap, 1997). Advantages of MG-CMSA over the method of correlated vectors include higher sensitivity to model violations, and the possibility to test more specific and competing hypotheses.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the method of correlated vectors, the means and standard deviations of the variables cannot have any mathematical relationship with the factor structure of the correlation matrix because the means and the variances of all the tests in the factor-analyzed correlation matrix are totally removed by the Pearson correlations, which convert all variables to z scores. Therefore, any systematic relationship between factor loadings and standardized group means (or group mean differences) must be an empirical fact, not an artifact (Jensen, 1992).Other claims of artifact are contradicted by Dolan's (1997) technical commentaries on the method of correlated vectors (Dolan, 1997(Dolan, , 2000. Dolan argued that the method of correlated vectors is not incorrect but that it lacks specificity; that is, it does not incorporate tests of alternative models of the factor structure of group differences or incorporate statistical tests to compare them for goodnessof-fit.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%