Testing the Performance of Level-Specific Fit Evaluation in MCFA Models With Different Factor Structures Across Levels

A Monte Carlo study was conducted to compare the performance of a level-specific (LS) fit evaluation with that of a simultaneous (SI) fit evaluation in multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) models. We extended previous studies by examining their performance under MCFA models with different...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEducational and psychological measurement Vol. 82; no. 6; pp. 1153 - 1179
Main Authors Lee, Bitna, Sohn, Wonsook
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Los Angeles, CA SAGE Publications 01.12.2022
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:A Monte Carlo study was conducted to compare the performance of a level-specific (LS) fit evaluation with that of a simultaneous (SI) fit evaluation in multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) models. We extended previous studies by examining their performance under MCFA models with different factor structures across levels. In addition, various design factors and interaction effects between intraclass correlation (ICC) and misspecification type (MT) on their performance were considered. The simulation results demonstrate that the LS outperformed the SI in detecting model misspecification at the between-group level even in the MCFA model with different factor structures across levels. Especially, the performance of LS fit indices depended on the ICC, group size (GS), or MT. More specifically, the results are as follows. First, the performance of root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) was more promising in detecting misspecified between-level models as GS or ICC increased. Second, the effect of ICC on the performance of comparative fit index (CFI) or Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) depended on the MT. Third, the performance of standardized root mean squared residual (SRMR) improved as ICC increased and this pattern was more clear in structure misspecification than in measurement misspecification. Finally, the summary and implications of the results are discussed.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0013-1644
1552-3888
1552-3888
DOI:10.1177/00131644211066956