Comparison of Methods for Adjusting Incorrect Assignments of Items to Subtests

A common question in test evaluation is whether an a priori assignment of items to subtests is supported by empirical data. If the analysis results indicate the assignment of items to subtests under study is not supported by data, the assignment is often adjusted. In this study the authors compare two methods on the quality of their suggestions to adjust incorrect assignments of items to subtests. The confirmatory common factor (CCF) method is often used in practice. However, previous research reported rather poor quality of the suggested adjustments. Therefore, the CCF method is compared with a less often used but promising method, the oblique multiple group (OMG) method. The authors compared both methods with a simulation study taken under various conditions. For each method, several adjustment procedures were studied. The best adjustment procedure within the OMG method performed better than or highly comparable to the procedures within the CCF method.

[1]  H. Kiers,et al.  The Empirical Verification of an Assignment of Items to Subtests , 2008 .

[2]  Zvi Drezner,et al.  Model Specification Searches Using Ant Colony Optimization Algorithms , 2003 .

[3]  Claes Fornell,et al.  Issues in the Application of Covariance Structure Analysis: A Comment , 1983 .

[4]  James C. Anderson,et al.  On the Meaning of Within-Factor Correlated Measurement Errors , 1984 .

[5]  Samuel B. Green,et al.  An Adjusted Bonferroni Method for Elimination of Parameters in Specification Addition Searches , 2001 .

[6]  S. Green,et al.  A Monte Carlo Investigation of Methods for Controlling Type I Errors with Specification Searches in Structural Equation Modeling. , 1998, Multivariate behavioral research.

[7]  I. Stuive A comparison of confirmatory factor analysis methods , 2007 .

[8]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Model modifications in covariance structure analysis: the problem of capitalization on chance. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  K. Jöreskog A general approach to confirmatory maximum likelihood factor analysis , 1969 .

[10]  Edward E. Leamer,et al.  Specification Searches: Ad Hoc Inference with Nonexperimental Data , 1980 .

[11]  Samuel B. Green,et al.  Exploratory analyses to improve model fit: Errors due to misspecification and a strategy to reduce their occurrence , 1999 .

[12]  R. MacCallum,et al.  Some Factors Affecting the Success of Specification Searches in Covariance Structure Modeling. , 1988, Multivariate behavioral research.

[13]  S. Breckler,et al.  Applications of covariance structure modeling in psychology: cause for concern? , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  D. Sörbom Model modification , 1989 .

[15]  Willem E. Saris,et al.  Causal modelling in nonexperimental research : an introduction to the LISREL approach , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[16]  K. Jöreskog Testing a simple structure hypothesis in factor analysis , 1966, Psychometrika.

[17]  R. Sitgreaves Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). , 1979 .

[18]  Thomas J. Page,et al.  Causal modelling in nonexperimental research : an introduction to the LISREL approach , 1985, American Political Science Review.

[19]  S. Hutchinson The Stability of Post Hoc Model Modifications in Confirmatory Factor Analysis Models , 1998 .

[20]  P. Bentler,et al.  Model Modification in Covariance Structure Modeling: A Comparison among Likelihood Ratio, Lagrange Multiplier, and Wald Tests. , 1990, Multivariate behavioral research.

[21]  D Kaplan,et al.  Model Modification in Covariance Structure Analysis: Application of the Expected Parameter Change Statistic. , 1989, Multivariate behavioral research.

[22]  K. Holzinger,et al.  A simple method of factor analysis , 1944 .

[23]  Robert C. MacCallum,et al.  SPECIFICATION SEARCHES IN COVARIANCE STRUCTURE MODELING , 1986 .