Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-9nwgx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-22T03:46:30.954Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Sampling Error on Convergence, Improper Solutions, and Goodness-of-Fit Indices for Maximum Likelihood Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

James C. Anderson  and
David W. Gerbing
James C. Anderson*
Affiliation:
Department of Marketing Administration, The University of Texas at Austin
David W. Gerbing
Affiliation:
Baylor University
*
Request for reprints should be sent to James C. Anderson, J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University, 2001 Sheridan Rd, Evanston, IL, 60201, (312) 492-3522.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A Monte Carlo study assessed the effect of sampling error and model characteristics on the occurrence of nonconvergent solutions, improper solutions and the distribution of goodness-of-fit indices in maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis. Nonconvergent and improper solutions occurred more frequently for smaller sample sizes and for models with fewer indicators of each factor. Effects of practical significance due to sample size, the number of indicators per factor and the number of factors were found for GFI, AGFI, and RMR, whereas no practical effects were found for the probability values associated with the chi-square likelihood ratio test.

Keywords

Confirmatory factory analysisLISRELMonte CarloMaximum likelihood
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1984 , pp. 155 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

James Anderson is now at the J. L. Kellogg Graduate School of Management, Northwestern University. The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments and suggestions of Kenneth Land and the reviewers, and the assistance of A. Narayanan with the analysis. Support for this research was provided by the Graduate School of Business and the University Research Institute of the University of Texas at Austin.

References

Bearden, W. O., Sharma, S., & Tell, J. E. (1982). Sample size effects on chi-square and other statistics used in evaluating causal models. Journal of Marketing Research, 19, 425–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M. (1983). Some contributions to efficient statistics in structural models: Specification and estimation of moment structures. Psychometrika, 48, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness-of-fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boomsma, A. (1982). The robustness of LISREL against small sample sizes in factor analysis models. In Joreskog, K. G. and Wold, H. (Eds.), Systems under indirect observation: Causality, structure, prediction (Part 1), Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1973). Confirmatory factor-analytic structures and the theory construction process. Sociological Methods and Research, 2, 131–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finn, J. D. (1973). A general model for multivariate analysis, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc..Google Scholar
Games, P. A., Keselman, H. J., & Clinch, J. J. (1979). Tests for homogeneity of variance in factorial designs. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 978–984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodman, L. A. (1971). The analysis of multidimensional contingency tables: Stepwise procedures and direct estimation methods for building models for multiple classifications. Technometrics, 13, 33–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gweke, J. F., & Singleton, K. J. (1980). Interpreting the likelihood ratio statistic in factor models when sample size is small. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 133–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hays, W. L. (1973). Statistics for the social sciences 2nd ed.,, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc..Google Scholar
Heise, D. R. (1975). Causal analysis, NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
IMSL (1980). International Mathematical and Statistical Libraries, Houston: IMSL, Inc..Google Scholar
Jackson, D. N., & Chan, D. W. (1980). Maximum-likelihood estimation in common factor analysis: A cautionary note. Psychological Bulletin, 88, 502–508.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1966). Testing a simple structure hypothesis in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 31, 165–178.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Joreskog, K. G. (1967). Some contributions to maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 32, 443–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1969). A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 34, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1970). A general method for analysis of covariance structures. Biometrika, 57, 239–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1971). Statistical analysis of sets of congeneric tests. Psychometrika, 36, 109–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G. (1978). Structural analysis of covariance and correlation matric. Psychometrika, 43, 443–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1978). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood (Version IV), Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc..Google Scholar
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (1981). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood (Version V), Chicago: National Educational Resources, Inc..Google Scholar
Lawley, D. N., & Maxwell, A. E. (1971). Factor analysis as a statistical method, NY: American Elsevier Publishing Company, Inc..Google Scholar
Learmouth, G. P. and Lewis, P. A. W. (1973). Statistical tests of some widely used and recently proposed uniform random number generators. (Report No. NPS55LW73111A), Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School.Google Scholar
Siegel, S. (1956). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences, NY: McGraw-Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Driel, O. P. (1978). On various causes of improper solutions of maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 43, 225–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar