A Comparison of CFA, ESEM, and BSEM in Test Structure Analysis. Issue 5 (3rd September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Xiao, Yue; Liu, Hongyun; Hau, Kit-Tai
• Is Part Of: Structural equation modeling. Volume 26:Issue 5(2019)
• Page Start: 665
• Page End: 677
• Publication Date: 2019-09-03
• Subjects: Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) -- exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) -- confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) -- prior specification; Multivariate analysis -- Periodicals; Social sciences -- Statistical methods -- Periodicals; 519.535
• DOI: 10.1080/10705511.2018.1562928
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1070-5511

Abstract

Abstract : Minor cross-loadings on non-targeted factors are often found in psychological or other instruments. Forcing them to zero in confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) leads to biased estimates and distorted structures. Alternatively, exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM) and Bayesian structural equation modeling (BSEM) have been proposed. In this research, we compared the performance of the traditional independent-clusters-confirmatory-factor-analysis (ICM-CFA), the nonstandard CFA, ESEM with the Geomin- or Target-rotations, and BSEMs with different cross-loading priors (correct; small- or large-variance priors with zero mean) using simulated data with cross-loadings. Four factors were considered: the number of factors, the size of factor correlations, the cross-loading mean, and the loading variance. Results indicated that ICM-CFA performed the worst. ESEMs were generally superior to CFAs but inferior to BSEM with correct priors that provided the precise estimation. BSEM with large- or small-variance priors performed similarly while the prior mean for cross-loadings was more important than the prior variance.