Parameter Recovery and Model Fit Using Multidimensional Composites: A Comparison of Four Empirical Parceling Algorithms

Manifest variables in covariance structure analysis are often combined to form parcels for use as indicators in a measurement model. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate four empirical algorithms for creating such parcels, focusing on the effects of dimensionality on accuracy of parameter estimation and model fit. Results suggest that accuracy of parameter estimation is primarily a function of the nature and number of dimensions in a composite, and that greater dimensionality also renders parceling methods more similar with respect to accuracy of estimation. Conversely, model fit is predominantly influenced by the parceling algorithm and number of parcels formed. An integrative analysis of the degree to which model fit signals accuracy of estimation highlights the respective advantages and disadvantages of the parceling algorithms. Results suggest that a Radial parceling algorithm may offer advantages over Correlational, Factorial, or Random assignment of items to parcels. The behavior of the Radial algorithm, and iterative algorithms in general, warrant further investigation.

[1]  B. Muthén,et al.  A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables: A note on the size of the model , 1992 .

[2]  J. Mathieu,et al.  Meeting trainees' expectations: The influence of training fulfillment on the development of commitment, self-efficacy, and motivation. , 1991 .

[3]  Paul E. Tesluk,et al.  A Comparison of Approaches to Forming Composite Measures in Structural Equation Models , 2000 .

[4]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  LISREL 7: A guide to the program and applications , 1988 .

[5]  P. Bentler,et al.  Comparative fit indexes in structural models. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[6]  R. Cattell,et al.  Validation and intensification of the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. , 1956, Journal of clinical psychology.

[7]  R. Bagozzi,et al.  A General Approach for Representing Constructs in Organizational Research , 1998 .

[8]  Rosalie J. Hall,et al.  Item Parceling Strategies in SEM: Investigating the Subtle Effects of Unmodeled Secondary Constructs , 1999 .

[9]  P. Bentler,et al.  Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in the Analysis of Covariance Structures , 1980 .

[10]  Raymond B. Cattell,et al.  The Radial Parcel Double Factoring Design: A Solution to the Item-Vs-Parcel Controversy , 1975 .

[11]  John E. Mathieu,et al.  Further evidence for the discriminant validity of measures of organizational commitment, job involvement, and job satisfaction. , 1991 .

[12]  Larry J. Williams,et al.  Parsimony‐based fit indices for multiple‐indicator models: Do they work? , 1994 .

[13]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Sample size in factor analysis. , 1999 .

[14]  L. Harlow,et al.  Effects of estimation methods, number of indicators per factor, and improper solutions on structural equation modeling fit indices , 1995 .

[15]  D. Bandalos The Effects of Item Parceling on Goodness-of-Fit and Parameter Estimate Bias in Structural Equation Modeling , 2002 .

[16]  Karl G. Jöreskog,et al.  Lisrel 8: User's Reference Guide , 1997 .

[17]  James C. Anderson,et al.  The effect of sampling error on convergence, improper solutions, and goodness-of-fit indices for maximum likelihood confirmatory factor analysis , 1984 .

[18]  L. Cronbach Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests , 1951 .

[19]  To parcel or not to parcel: The effects of item parceling in confirmatory factor analysis , 2000 .

[20]  S. Finney,et al.  Item parceling issues in structural equation modeling , 2001 .

[21]  B. Muthén,et al.  A comparison of some methodologies for the factor analysis of non‐normal Likert variables , 1985 .

[22]  T. Little,et al.  To Parcel or Not to Parcel: Exploring the Question, Weighing the Merits , 2002 .