You want to read the literature on this, such as the Yung, Thissen, McLoad (1999) Psychometrika article. For one thing, it depends on how many items you have per specific factor - at some point the models are not distinguishable. I don't know how much power there is to reject a second-order model in favor of a bifactor model under various circumstances. If we find that a bi-factor model fits the data best but subject-specific factors do not have significant variance, should we still prefer this model over the others? In addition, as our sample size is not very high (less than 200), can the low variance estimates be influenced by sample size?īengt O. What can we say about subject-specificity of a construct if the second-order factor model does not worsen the fit compared to the bifactor solution? We are not sure about the interpretation though. We are comparing second-order factor models with bifactor models. We are interested in testing the degree of subject-specificity versus subject-generalizability of motivational constructs. Kätlin Peets posted on Wednesday, Febru8:25 am I saw bifactor model was included in "Results of different exploratory factor models" Table in this paper "The role of the bifactor model in resolving dimensionality issues in health outcomes measures" ( ), and wondered. There is a general factor and uncorrelated specific factors.
![sandra model set 064 sandra model set 064](https://www.womanwho.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/WEB-2021-04-15-Sandra-Garlick-040-of-064-5269-300x200.jpg)
The bi-factor model is a CFA model, not an EFA model - it imposes more than m^2 restrictions. Think of the specific factor as absorbing a residual correlation between those 2 indicators - there is only 1 such correlation and therefore you can only identify 1 parameter, in this case the specific factor variance.Ĭan bifactor model be used in EFA? If it can, could you provide an example with Mplus code? Thanks!īengt O. When specific factors have only 2 indicators you cannot identify the loading for the second of those indicators. THE STANDARD ERRORS OF THE MODEL PARAMETER ESTIMATES COULD NOT BE COMPUTED.
![sandra model set 064 sandra model set 064](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sandra-Saldivia/publication/23560456/figure/tbl2/AS:667070341578768@1536053371526/PredictD-Model-Derived-in-the-Imputed-Data-Sets.png)
G with with with with the model gives the following error:
#Sandra model set 064 Pc#
G by sim vocab comp bd pc matreas ds lns dsc ss I am trying to fit a bifactor model of intelligence for the WISC-IV using the following model specifications: Mplus Discussion > Bifactor Model Problems Mplus Home