Dimensionality assessment in bifactor structures with multiple general factors: a network psychometrics approach
The accuracy of factor retention methods for structures with one or more general factors, like the ones typically encountered in fields like intelligence, personality, and psychopathology, has often been overlooked in dimensionality research. To address this issue, we compared the performance of sev...
| Autores: | , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2023 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universidad Autónoma de Madrid |
| Repositorio: | Biblos-e Archivo. Repositorio Institucional de la UAM |
| Idioma: | inglés |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositorio.uam.es:10486/712947 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10486/712947 https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/met0000590 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Dimensionality assessment exploratory bi-factor analysis Exploratory graph analysis hierarchical data parallel analysis Psicología |
| Sumario: | The accuracy of factor retention methods for structures with one or more general factors, like the ones typically encountered in fields like intelligence, personality, and psychopathology, has often been overlooked in dimensionality research. To address this issue, we compared the performance of several factor retention methods in this context, including a network psychometrics approach developed in this study. For estimating the number of group factors, these methods were the Kaiser criterion, empirical Kaiser criterion, parallel analysis with principal components (PAPCA) or principal axis, and exploratory graph analysis with Louvain clustering (EGALV). We then estimated the number of general factors using the factor scores of the first-order solution suggested by the best two methods, yielding a “second-order” version of PAPCA (PAPCA-FS) and EGALV (EGALV-FS). Additionally, we examined the direct multilevel solution provided by EGALV. All the methods were evaluated in an extensive simulation manipulating nine variables of interest, including population error. The results indicated that EGALV and PAPCA displayed the best overall performance in retrieving the true number of group factors, the former being more sensitive to high cross-loadings, and the latter to weak group factors and small samples. Regarding the estimation of the number of general factors, both PAPCA-FS and EGALV-FS showed a close to perfect accuracy across all the conditions, while EGALV was inaccurate. The methods based on EGA were robust to the conditions most likely to be encountered in practice. Therefore, we highlight the particular usefulness of EGALV (group factors) and EGALV-FS (general factors) for assessing bi-factor structures with multiple general factors |
|---|