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...
Saved in:
Published in | Educational and psychological measurement Vol. 82; no. 6; pp. 1153 - 1179 |
---|---|
Main Authors | , |
Format | Journal Article |
Language | English |
Published |
Los Angeles, CA
SAGE Publications
01.12.2022
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC |
Subjects | |
Online Access | Get full text |
Cover
Loading…
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 |