Login  Register

EFA to CFA( was Re: )

Posted by E. Bernardo on Nov 18, 2011; 8:57am
URL: http://spssx-discussion.165.s1.nabble.com/no-subject-tp4997278p5003744.html

Dear Rich and all,

Rich said: Poor replication/confirmation could owe to a poor choice of items from the
original set.

Would you able to suggest a method that will produce good items from the original test in order to have good replication/confirmation?

Thank you.


From: Rich Ulrich <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2011 2:08 AM
Subject:


You are using Promax, which produces correlated factors.  Your sample
size is not necessarily large enough for a good construction from 81 items.
That suggests you would get a lot of cross-loaded items.  Varimax is
the most common tool, for various reasons, including the clearer delineation
of loadings.

You use Promax, and then you eliminate items that are cross-loaded?  That
sounds like it might be a formula for getting rid of the best items. When you
read the items that were dropped for low communalities, I assume you can
infer (somewhat) why these are inferior to the rest -- unclear items or not
on-topic.  I expect that is not the case for cross-loaded items.

Poor replication/confirmation could owe to a poor choice of items from the
original set.

--
Rich Ulrich




Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 18:02:43 +0800
From: [hidden email]
To: [hidden email]

Dear All,

I used Principal Axis Factoring using promax method in conducting EFA for the 81 items that utilized six-point ordinal scale.  The sample was n=381.  There is no indication of severe skewness on the data (skewness <3, kurtusis <10 and mardia coefficients >1000).  I used commonalities and factor loadings as criteria of dropping items.  Items with commonalities of <.40 were dropped.  Items with factor loadings of <.32 were also dropped. Crossloadings items were also dropped.  Finally, 35 items were left which loaded to six interpretable correlated factors.   The factors have the following number of items: 10, 7, 8, 4, 3 and 3.  After the factor analysis, the reliability coefficients were computed for each factor.  The Cronbach alpha are quite high.

After the EFA, a CFA was conducted using a separate sample of n=500 using amos.  Unfortunately, the chiquare has zero pvalue and no one of the fit indices were acceptable. I tried to improve the model  (guided by the modification indices).  I found out that the fit (at least the fit indices such as RMSEA, SRMR, cmin/df) of the model improved when I correlated the residuals/error terms.  Question:Is it appropriate to correlate the error terms?

Thank you in advance for your comments.

Eins