Measurement Models: Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis

James G. Anderson, Ph.D. Purdue University

Conceptual Nature of Latent Variables

Latent variables correspond to some type of hypothetical construct Require a specific operational definition Indicators of the construct need to be selected Data from the indicators must be consistent with certain predictions (e.g., moderately correlated with one another)

Multi-Indicator Approach
A multiple-indicator approach reduces the overall effect of measurement error of any individual observed variable on the accuracy of the results A distinction is made between observed variables (indicators) and underlying latent variables or factors (constructs) Together the observed variables and the latent variables make up the measurement model

Principles of Measurement
Reliability is concerned with random error Validity is concerned with random and systematic error

Measurement Reliability
Test-Retest Alternate Forms Split-Half/Internal Consistency Inter-rater Coefficient 0.90 Excellent 0.80 Very Good 0.70 Adequate 0.50 Poor

Measurement Validity
Content ( (whether an indicators items are representative of the domain of the construct) Criterion-Related (whether a measure relates to an external standard against which it can be evaluated) Concurrent (when scores on the predictor and criterion are collected at the same time) Predictive (when scores on the predictor and criterion are collected at different times) Convergent (items that measure the same construct are correlated with one another) Discriminant (items that measure different constructs are not correlated highly with one another)

Types of Measurement Models

Exploratory (EFA) Confirmatory (CFA) Multitrait-Multimethod (MTMM) Hierarchical CFA

An Exploratory Factor Model

EFA Features
The potential number of factors ranges from one up to the number of observed variables All of the observed variables in EFA are allowed to correlate with every factor An EFA solution usually requires rotation to make the factors more interpretable. Rotation changes the correlations between the factors and the indicators so the pattern of values is more distinct

A Confirmatory Factor Model

CFA Features
The number of factors and the observed variables (indicators) that load on each construct (factor or latent variable) are specified in advance of the analysis Generally indicators load on only one construct (factor) Each indicator is represented as having two causes, a single factor that it is suppose to measure and all other unique sources of variance represented by measurement error

CFA Features
The measurement error terms are independent of each other and of the factors All associations between factors are unanalyzed

EFA vs CFA
The purpose is to determine the number and nature of latent variables or factors that account for the variation and covariation among a set of observed variables or indicators. Two types of analysis
Exploratory Factor Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis

EFA vs CFA
Both types of analysis try to reproduce the observed relationships among a set of indicators with a smaller set of latent variables. EFA is data driven and used to determine the number of factors and which observed variables are indicators of each latent variable. In EFA all the observed variables are standardized and the correlation matrix is analyzed

EFA vs CFA
CFA is confirmatory. The number of factors and the pattern of indicator factor loadings are specified in advance. CFA analyzes the variance-covariance matrix of unstandardized variables. The prespecified factor solution is evaluated in terms of how well it reproduces the sample covariance matrix of measured variables.

EFA vs CFA
CFA models fix cross-loadings to zero. EFA models may involve cross-loadings of indicators. In EFA models errors are assumed to be uncorrelated In CFA models errors may be correlated.

EFA Procedures
Decide which indicators to include in the analysis. Select the method to establish the factor model
ML (assumes a multivariate normal distribution) Principle Factors (Distribution Free)

EFA Procedures
Select the appropriate number of factors
Eigenvalues greater than one Scree test Goodness of fit of the model

If there is more than one factor, select the technique to rotate the initial factor matrix to simple structure
Orthogonal rotation (Varimax) Oblique rotation (e.g., Promax)

EFA Procedures
Select the appropriate number of factors
Eigenvalues greater than one Scree test Goodness of fit of the model

If there is more than one factor, select the technique to rotate the initial factor matrix to simple structure
Orthogonal rotation (varimax) Oblique rotation (e.g., oblimin)

EFA Procedures
Select the appropriate number of factors Identify which indicators load on each factor or latent variable You can calculate factor scores to serve as latent variables

Uses of CFA
Evaluation of test instruments Construct validation
Convergent validity Discriminant validity

Evaluation of methods effects Evaluation of measurement invariance Development and testing of the measurement model for a SEM.

Advantages of CFA
Test nested models Test relationships among error variables or constraints on factor loadings (e.g., equality) Test equivalent measurement models in two or more groups or at two or more times.

Advantages of CFA
The fit of the measurement model can be determined before estimating the SEM model. In SEM models you can establish relationships among variables adjusting for measurement error. CFA can be used to analyze mean structures.

CFA Model Identification

Identification pertains to the difference between the number of estimated model parameters and the number of pieces of information in the variance/covariance matrix. Every latent variable needs to have its scale identified.
Fix one loading of an observed variable on the latent variable to one Fix the variance of the latent variable to one

A Covariance Structure Model

A Structural Model of the Dimensions of Teacher Stress

Survey of teacher stress, job satisfaction and career commitment 710 primary school teachers in the U.K.

Methods
20-Item survey of teacher stress EFA (N=355) CFA (N=375) 1-Item overall self-rating of stress SEM (N=710)

Table1: An oblique five factor pattern solution (N=170)

Factors
Factor 1 Workload Factor 2 Professional Recognition Factor 3 Student Misbehavior Factor 4 - Time/Resource Difficulties Factor 5 Poor Colleague Relations

Factor Patterns

EFA Results
5 Factor solution 4 Items deleted Fit Statistics: Chi Square = 156.94 df = 70 AGFI = 0.906 RMR = 0.053

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Covariances between exogenous latent traits

CFA Results
5 Factor solution 2 Items deleted Fit Statistics: Chi Square = 171.14 df = 70 AGFI = 0.911 RMR = 0.057

Structural Equation Models

True Null Model - Hypothesizes no significant covariances among the observed variables Structural Null Model - Hypothesizes no significant structural or correlational relations among the latent variables Non-Recursive Model Mediated Model

Regression Model

Non-recursive model

Regression Model

Comparison of Fit Indices

Results
Two major contributors to teacher stress Work load Student Misbehavior